moran@tron.UUCP (Harvey R Moran) (11/27/88)
Recently I posted "s5last" to comp.sources.misc with a copyright notice
attached that requires distrubution of the source in machine readable
format.
More recently Chris Kern posted "pd-last" with the notation that he
considered my restriction to be "excessively severe". His posting is
public domain.
Of course, no one will consider any program of this lack of
complexity to be any big deal. However, it was my intention to cover
any future postings with a similar copyright notice. Frankly, I
thought my notice was extermely liberal. It even permits you to sell
the program to some poor uninformed soul, with only the proviso that
they be provided with the means to become informed that they could
have had it free -- i.e. the source code, with copyright notice. And
that the terms of "free" do not even require that they transcribe it
from paper to a usable form -- i.e. the source must be in machine
readable format.
Why a copyright notice? It is my (mis?) understanding that without
some such notice some programs have already been effectively
removed from the public domain by someone who's only connection with the
program is that they used a legal trick to abscond with it. I never
did understand how the legal trick was supposed to work.
If my understanding is incorrect, I'd like to find out what is
correct, since my only intention is that the code for "s5last" and any
future offerings be freely distributable with a guarantee that they
*stay* freely distributable.
I invite anyone who thinks they can describe what is the minimal
means to accomplish this to inform me by mail just what that is.
I will summarize any commentary that I get and use it to formulate
a revised minimal copyright notice (or lack thereof) for any future
postings.
In the mean time, let me state that anyone whose purpose is not
restricting the free distribution of "s5last" in source form is
satisfactorily complying with the terms of its copyright notice.
Harvey Moran tron%moran.UUCP@umbc3.UMD.EDU
...!netsys!tron!moran
...!{wb3ffv!netsys}!hrmhpc!harveyoz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) (11/29/88)
In article <391@tron.UUCP> moran@tron.UUCP (Harvey R Moran) writes: >Why a copyright notice? It is my (mis?) understanding that without >some such notice some programs have already been effectively >removed from the public domain by someone who's only connection with the >program is that they used a legal trick to abscond with it. Nothing that is placed in the public domain may be removed from that domain, although a modified version of that same work may be copyrighted and hence restricted. The *original* cannot, in any way, be restricted. There are an uncountable number of literary and artistic work, not to mention major software packages (for example, franz-lisp) in this situation. I suspect though, that it takes some care to make a significant program public domain, to avoid future slime-trick (perhaps this is what you were referring to) where somebody copyrights a modified version of the work, and than attepts to claim that the public-domain version is in fact an illegal copy of their(?) work... For any major work, the best technique may be to have a "copyrighted" beta release, and then, drop the copyright in the final release with a statement indicating the release into the public-domain. oz -- You see things, and you say "WHY?" Usenet: oz@nexus.yorku.ca But I dream things that never were; ......!uunet!utai!yunexus!oz and say "WHY NOT?" Bitnet: oz@[yulibra|yuyetti] [Back To Methuselah] Bernard Shaw Phonet: +1 416 736-5257x3976
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) (12/03/88)
As quoted from <391@tron.UUCP> by moran@tron.UUCP (Harvey R Moran): +--------------- | Why a copyright notice? It is my (mis?) understanding that without | some such notice some programs have already been effectively | removed from the public domain by someone who's only connection with the | program is that they used a legal trick to abscond with it. I never | did understand how the legal trick was supposed to work. | | If my understanding is incorrect, I'd like to find out what is | correct, since my only intention is that the code for "s5last" and any | future offerings be freely distributable with a guarantee that they | *stay* freely distributable. +--------------- (1) With the recent change in copyright laws, I believe that such things as net.postings are automatically covered by copyright. However, it may not be the copyright you want.... (2) Many people consider the Gnu copyleft to be "overly restrictive". +--------------- | In the mean time, let me state that anyone whose purpose is not | restricting the free distribution of "s5last" in source form is | satisfactorily complying with the terms of its copyright notice. +--------------- Not true. A copyright notice is a legal document; if you do not describe the rights granted and/or reserved in proper legal detail, the copyright may bite back. (I got hit by this with the UNaXcess 1.0.x copyright.) If you want to be CERTAIN the copyright does what you intend, consult a copyright lawyer. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, comp.sources.misc moderator and one admin of ncoast PA UN*X uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery <PREFERRED!> ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu allberyb@skybridge.sdi.cwru.edu <ALSO> allbery@uunet.uu.net comp.sources.misc is moving off ncoast -- please do NOT send submissions direct Send comp.sources.misc submissions to comp-sources-misc@<backbone>.