brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (05/03/90)
Matt Crawford has seen fit to take a personal vendetta to this group. I apologize to comp.sources.d readers for his failure of self-control. I will uphold my reputation as a conscientious developer of good, free software, and I see no reason to tolerate Matt's unfounded attacks. First, anyone who does not time-date copyright limitations is deluding himself and anyone receiving the copyrighted work. 17 USC 203(a) says that after a certain period of time an author can regain the exclusivity of his copyright by informing recipients that he intends to do so. In fact, (a)(5) says that it doesn't matter what the author has done to give away his rights; he can still get them back. Either Richard Stallman knows this and is tricking people into thinking that Emacs is truly free, or his lawyers haven't told him basic copyright law. But I don't time-date copyrights just to warn people who use my software about legal technicalities. I do it to ensure that old, possibly buggy versions have a limited lifespan. Newer versions of my programs last longer; for each program, if I don't find any bugs before the first ``expires,'' I send out a new version with no limitations. As a free software developer, I want to make my software as widely available as possible; as a conscientious software developer, I want people twenty years from now to be distributing new, not obsolete, versions. Furthermore, as I state explicitly at the bottom of the copyright notice: ``If you have questions about authtcp or about this copyright notice, or if you would like additional rights beyond those granted above, please feel free to contact the author at brnstnd@acf10.nyu.edu on the Internet.'' Whenever I find out about people in an organization planning to put my programs into wide use, I check with them and make sure they understand exactly what my copyright means and that they should ask me if they'd like further rights. Finally, once you've legally obtained a copy of software, it's yours. Nobody can take away your right to use it, to make backup copies, to make changes for your own use, to give it to a friend, or any of the other rights normally associated with ownership. Remember that. In article <973@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> matt@group-w.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford) writes: > By now many of you will have noticed some absurd restrictions placed in > the copyright notices on sources submitted by Dan Bernstein to > comp.sources.unix. The conditions include > o No rights to the recipient except those explicitly granted. That's a shameless lie, Matt. As you should know, recipients are given quite a few rights under the copyright law. I'm giving them further rights---unlike the GPL and other shrink-wrap licenses, which say that you can't keep using the software if you disobey their restrictive conditions. Nowhere do I pretend that I'm *restricting* the recipient. In contrast, GPL section 4 is exactly such a pretense. Copyright limitations are not the same thing as licenses. > o The right to make and distribute exact copies, but not any > derivative forms, as long as no fee is charged. What's wrong with this? I just want people to check with me before distributing modified versions. That way I can find out who's using what versions, know where to report bugs in particular derivatives, etc. > o Those rights, what few there are, are revocable upon > "written, oral, or other" notice, and are "automatically" > revoked on a certain date in the future. That's the legal protection that I talk about above. Matt, I'm not responsible for your failure to read or understand the copyright law; but I won't have people who use my programs similarly deluded. > Putting aside any discussion of whether compiling a program is creating > a derivative work Under the copyright law which you haven't read, compiling a program is not a violation of copyright. > these restrictions are utterly absurd to the point that > I think the resources of USENET are wasted in transmitting this stuff. I think the recipients of filterfile, squeeze, auth, authutil, multitee, and my future comp.sources.unix submissions can try them out and judge for themselves how ``absurd'' my ``restrictions'' are. > Anyone using this code is running a big risk, since the author obviously > has legalisms on his mind. Any author who puts his software under a legally unsound license when lawyers have advised him of better alternatives is a fool. Again, anyone who's not sure about his rights or who would like further rights should talk to me. How can you say I have any more ``legalisms'' on my mind than someone who puts his software under the four-times-as-long GPL? A few months ago, a poor soul confused by the proliferation of GPL-like unenforceable licenses wrote me asking why my ``license'' didn't give him permission to modify squeeze for his own use. As I told him, he's given that right by the copyright law. It's a shame that inexperienced pseudo-lawyers like Matt who don't even bother reading the law have created an environment where such confusion can exist. > I urge all comp.sources.unix readers who share my opinions to write to > Dan Bernstein <brnstnd@acf10.nyu.edu> and express their disapproval. As always, I solicit suggestions, questions, criticism, and any other comments. > I urge all comp.sources.unix archivists to delete Dan's recent > submissions from their archives. Indeed, your corporate lawyers would > probably *demand* that you delete them if they saw them. (UUNET is > probably already in violation of Dan's nutty terms!) Indeed, I encourage anyone who thinks there's any potential problem to get in touch with me and with their lawyers. I'd love to hear any constructive criticism of the limitations I put on my copyright, and if there's a problem I'll do whatever I can to solve it. Again, if you'd like additional rights or if you have any other questions, feel free to get in touch with me. Please don't take any rash actions simply on the basis of Matt's silly guesses about legal issues. By the way, Matt, UUNET is not in violation of my ``nutty terms,'' nor is anyone else who is distributing exact copies for free. ---Dan
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (05/04/90)
brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu writes: |Matt Crawford has seen fit to take a personal vendetta to this group. I see no personal attacks in his posting. |I apologize to comp.sources.d readers for his failure of self-control. Matt's article was well written. Dan should apologise for his baseless accusations. |I will uphold my reputation as a conscientious developer of good, free |software, and I see no reason to tolerate Matt's unfounded attacks. Matt isn't attacking you. He's attacking your ridiculous copyright notice. I'm amazed at how some otherwise intelligent appearing people, who can do wonderful things like write software, can't seem to understand the difference between personal attacks and professional criticisms of something they've done or created. Is debate dead? Can we not discuss the merits of something without someone taking it personally? Sean -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean