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