[sci.electronics] network public domain?

phil@diablo.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (02/08/89)

In article <2944@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes:
|
|This network is public domain and if you don't want anything in
|the public domain, DON'T POST IT.

I was trying to decide if I should get my company to post some free,
useful, but NOT public domain, software to the network. 

You've just helped me decide not to bother.
--
Phil Ngai, phil@diablo.amd.com		{uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil
"In Texas, they run the red light after it turns red."
"In Taiwan, they run the red light before it turns green."

mark@jhereg.Jhereg.MN.ORG (Mark H. Colburn) (02/09/89)

In article <24371@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@diablo.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <2944@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes:
>|
>|This network is public domain and if you don't want anything in
>|the public domain, DON'T POST IT.

This is blatently wrong.  There are a number of people on the net which
have posted copyrighted source to the net, including myself.  The copyright
includes permission to copy the software freely for non-profit use, or
whatever restrictions you wish to add.  Take a look at comp.os.minix.  The
stuff in there is definitely NOT public domain.  It is all copyrighted, and
protected by US copyright laws.  Take a look at flex, the sources to news
2.11, and others.

>I was trying to decide if I should get my company to post some free,
>useful, but NOT public domain, software to the network. 
>
>You've just helped me decide not to bother.

If you have something useful and free, then you should post it.  It is this
kind of empathy that keeps the net running and useful for all of us.


-- 
Mark H. Colburn                  "Look into a child's eye;
Minnetech Consulting, Inc.        there's no hate and there's no lie;
mark@jhereg.mn.org                there's no black and there's no white."

dmt@mtunb.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) (02/09/89)

>In article <2944@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes:
>|This network is public domain and if you don't want anything in
>|the public domain, DON'T POST IT.

In article <24371@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@diablo.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes:
>I was trying to decide if I should get my company to post some free,
>useful, but NOT public domain, software to the network. 
>You've just helped me decide not to bother.

Phil,
Please don't be put off by the rantings of someone who is wrong.
(The first time I wrote, "...doesn't know the difference between public
domain and freely-distributable copyrighted stuff";  but I have no
evidence that John doesn't know the difference.)

MUCH discussion in the "sources" and "legal" groups seems to support
the notion that a posting with a proper copyright notice is simply
another form of publication; it in no way places the published material
in the public domain.  I've posted my own copyrighted stuff, and
not feared for its fate.  Stuff that's copyrighted and NOT "freely
copyable" probably shouldn't be posted, but I assume that's not what
you're talking about.

Just be sure your posting contains:
   -	A statement that it's copyrighted.
   -	A statement of the conditions for copying, reposting, modifying, etc.
   -	A statement that the original copyright notice MUST accompany
	any distribution of your work or its derivatives.

If you doubt it, just look at what gets posted in groups like
comp.sources.misc or comp.binaries.ibm.pc.  And note that when someone
inadvertently posts something that shouldn't have been, the net
community gets on him/her pretty quickly.

Perhaps the net IS "public domain", whatever that means.  To the same
extent, so is the public library.  But that doesn't place everything
there in the public domain; it just makes it available to the public.

+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|    Dave Tutelman						|
|    Physical - AT&T Bell Labs  -  Lincroft, NJ			|
|    Logical -  ...att!mtunb!dmt				|
|    Audible -  (201) 576 2442					|
+---------------------------------------------------------------+

john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) (02/09/89)

In article <1389@mtunb.ATT.COM> dmt@mtunb.UUCP (Dave Tutelman) writes:
>
>Phil,
>Please don't be put off by the rantings of someone who is wrong.
>(The first time I wrote, "...doesn't know the difference between public
>domain and freely-distributable copyrighted stuff";  but I have no
>evidence that John doesn't know the difference.)
>

Hardly "ranting" sir.  There is no such legal definition of the term
"frely distributable copyrighted stuff"  I have a great deal of 
very expensive and hard won experience on this subject.  Rather
than waste net.bandwidth, I'll vector interested parties to 
net.admin for support of  this statement.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC                     | Manual? ... What manual ?!? 
Sales Technologies, Inc.    Atlanta, GA    | This is Unix, My son, You 
...!gatech!stiatl!john                     | just GOTTA Know!!! 

dmt@mtunb.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) (02/09/89)

>In article <1389@mtunb.ATT.COM> dmt@mtunb.UUCP (that's me) writes:
>>Please don't be put off by the rantings of someone who is wrong.
>>(The first time I wrote, "...doesn't know the difference between public
>>domain and freely-distributable copyrighted stuff";  but I have no
>>evidence that John doesn't know the difference.)

In article <3028@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes:
>Hardly "ranting" sir.  There is no such legal definition of the term
>"frely distributable copyrighted stuff"  I have a great deal of 
>very expensive and hard won experience on this subject.  Rather
>than waste net.bandwidth, I'll vector interested parties to 
>net.admin for support of  this statement.

Let me encourage anyone who's following this discussion to read John's
thoughtful note in news.admin (NOT net.admin), message <3025@stiatl.UUCP>.
In it, he points out a number of practical difficulties of depending
on the copyright laws to protect your rights.
And yes, he's right that there's no legal definition of "freely-
distributable copyrighted stuff".

So why don't I feel chastised?  Because there IS a legal definition
of "public domain", and I responded to John's use of that term to
characterize everything on the net.  After reading his posting, I'd
like to point out that there exists:
   1-	Public domain software, which belongs to nobody (not even its
	author has any special rights).
   2-	Commercial software, whose owners intend to do what is necessary
	to make a buck selling it.
   3-	Copyrighted software, whose owners don't charge for it but
	want to retain "control" of some sort.  (E.g.- make sure my
	name stays attached, or make sure nobody calls me with bug
	reports of bugs introduced by someone else.)  This is what I
	meant by "freely-distributable copyrighted stuff"; it's not a
	legal definition, but I don't see why I need one now.

Most of John's comments address type 2.  I agree with them (including the
implication that shareware authors are unduly optimistic about their
rights).  (John, I hope that paraphrase doesn't start a flame war.)  But
that wasn't what I had in mind; John's comments equated type 1 and type 3.
Legally, they are quite distinct.  Practically, (as John points out)
they are not as distinct in the face of unprincipled others; only the
lawyers win.

To address this, I need again to fall back on the analogy of the
public library.  Books in the library, by and large, bear copyrights.
However, it's easy for an unprincipled cardholder to abuse the
copyrights for private use (i.e.-treat the books as if they were
public domain).  The law is clear, but only the lawyer will win in
any attempt to enforce it.  In the face of this, public libraries
DO IN FACT WORK; there are abuses, but they aren't sufficiently
prevalent to destroy the system.

I continue to feel the analogy between the net and the public library
is a good one.

+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|    Dave Tutelman						|
|    Physical - AT&T Bell Labs  -  Lincroft, NJ			|
|    Logical -  ...att!mtunb!dmt				|
|    Audible -  (201) 576 2442					|
+---------------------------------------------------------------+

vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (02/14/89)

In article <24371@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@diablo.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes:
)In article <2944@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes:
)|This network is public domain and if you don't want anything in
)|the public domain, DON'T POST IT.
 
)I was trying to decide if I should get my company to post some free,
)useful, but NOT public domain, software to the network. 
 
)You've just helped me decide not to bother.
)Phil Ngai, phil@diablo.amd.com		{uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil

	I hope that subsequent postings have caused you to reconsider.


-- 
Later Y'all,  Vnend                       Ignorance is the mother of adventure.   
SCA event list? Mail?  Send to:vnend@phoenix.princeton.edu or vnend@pucc.bitnet   
        Anonymous posting service (NO FLAMES!) at vnend@ms.uky.edu                    
           Love is wanting to keep more than one person happy.

keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (02/14/89)

|This network is public domain and if you don't want anything in
|the public domain, DON'T POST IT.

And...
Books in the Public (there's that heinous P-word again) Library are
available for "free" so if you don't want your book in the public
domain, don't publish it!!

kEITH (seems like a logical extension to me) eRICSON