rsalz@uunet.uu.net (Rich Salz) (07/08/88)
Submitted-by: Rich $alz <rsalz@uunet.uu.net> Posting-number: Volume 15, Info 4 Archive-name: cu-shell.note Ignore the copyright on the "cu-shell" posting, Volume 15 #83. I consider comp.sources.unix to be a publication -- careful readers with good memories will note that I've always used the phrase "published" or "appeared" and never used the word "posted." Anyone who wants to contest this should take me, personally, to court. The cu-shell claim of being "unpublished proprietary source code," then, is clearly: Naive Wrong Incorrectly based on jargon I've seen ATT use. As long as I'm writing this, I might as well also comment on copyrights in general. I don't like them; they cause hassles for diligent users, they make me waste my time, they're often wrong, and they rarely serve their purpose. I am slowly moving to the conclusion that I will not accept anything for publication in comp.sources.unix that has a copyright on it. While I recognize that the GNU license causes problems for lots of people, and that others just don't like it, it doesn't bother me so I'll probably make an exception for that. Similar for the style of copyright Henry Spencer used on his "strings" library. Rank has its privileges. If you want or expect to maintain any rights to something, if you are unable or unwilling to completely let it go, then comp.sources.unix probably isn't the right forum for your work. /rich $alz -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.
jbuck@epimass.UUCP (07/12/88)
In article <981@fig.bbn.com> rsalz@uunet.uu.net (Rich Salz) writes: >While I recognize that the GNU license causes problems for lots of people, >and that others just don't like it, it doesn't bother me so I'll probably >make an exception for that. Similar for the style of copyright Henry >Spencer used on his "strings" library. Rank has its privileges. Hell, Rich. The GNU license is one of the most restrictive licenses around. How can you accept the GNU license and reject, say, the type of copyright Larry Wall uses: > Perl Kit, Version 2.0 > > Copyright (c) 1988, Larry Wall > >You may copy the perl kit in whole or in part as long as you don't try to >make money off it, or pretend that you wrote it. As for any copyright on the cu-shell posting, seems to me we can't ignore it. If you had a question you should have rejected the stuff in question. As for me, I'll continue to use Larry Wall's style of copyright when I post something. Why? Just because I'm vain enough to enjoy getting credit, I suppose. Almost everything I've seen from the sources groups that's any good has some kind of copyright on it, anyway. Rather than a "no copyright" rule, may I suggest a different set of rules: * The copyright, if any, must allow the program to be freely distributable. * Forbid asking for a cash donation or royalty. -- - Joe Buck {uunet,ucbvax,pyramid,<smart-site>}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck jbuck@epimass.epi.com Old Arpa mailers: jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net If you leave your fate in the hands of the gods, don't be surprised if they have a few grins at your expense. - Tom Robbins
honey@umix.cc.umich.edu (Peter Honeyman) (07/13/88)
Joe Buck writes: >Almost everything I've seen >from the sources groups that's any good has some kind of copyright >on it, anyway. from pathalias/README: pathalias, written by steve bellovin and peter honeyman, is in the public domain, and may be used by any person or organization, in any way and for any purpose.
jfh@rpp386.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) (07/13/88)
In article <2296@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >Rather than a "no copyright" rule, may I suggest a different set of rules: what about the "USENET Community Trust" used over in alt.gourmand? is that for real and could the copyright be assigned to that entity? - john. -- John F. Haugh II +--------- Cute Chocolate Quote --------- HASA, "S" Division | "USENET should not be confused with UUCP: killer!rpp386!jfh | something that matters, like CHOCOLATE" DOMAIN: jfh@rpp386.uucp | -- with my apologizes
rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (07/13/88)
First, some background. I wrote:
While I recognize that the GNU license causes problems for lots of people,
and that others just don't like it, it doesn't bother me so I'll probably
make an exception for that. Similar for the style of copyright Henry
Spencer used on his "strings" library. Rank has its privileges.
To which Joe Buck (jbuck@epimass.epi.com) replied:
Hell, Rich. The GNU license is one of the most restrictive licenses
around. How can you accept the GNU license and reject, say, the
type of copyright Larry Wall uses:
"Copyright (c) 1988, Larry Wall
You may copy the perl kit in whole or in part as long as you don't try to
make money off it, or pretend that you wrote it."
Foreground. Future quotes (">" lines) are from Joe's article.
You're right, Larry's is fine. Should I have changed my original posting
to say "Henry's or Larry's style of copyright"? Yeah, probably. But you
know what? I didn't think of it. I already waste too much time reading
with and dealing with this copyright shit. Consider this glitch further
proof.
>As for any copyright on the cu-shell posting, seems to me we can't
>ignore it. If you had a question you should have rejected the
>stuff in question.
Yup, I should'a realized. I had the sucker queued up and forget that it
had this bogosity in it. Suppose I put out a patch that deleted the
copyright? (Rhetorical question; my "ignore it" is the last I'm gonna say
on this posting; do what you feel comfortable with.)
>As for me, I'll continue to use Larry Wall's style of copyright
>when I post something. Why? Just because I'm vain enough to
>enjoy getting credit, I suppose. Almost everything I've seen
>from the sources groups that's any good has some kind of copyright
>on it, anyway.
With very few exceptions, I somewhat disagree. If some slime-bucket is
going to rip you off, the word copyright on a posting that was sent to
thousands of sites world-wide will not prevent it. There is some really
good software out there that is truly in the public domain -- John
Gilmore's PD tar, pathalias, and (more humbly) my cshar package come to
mind as three things I use almost every day. Slapping copyrights on net
postings is a relatively recent invention. Rummage through the archives
and check, if you think I'm wrong.
>Rather than a "no copyright" rule, may I suggest a different set of rules:
>* The copyright, if any, must allow the program to be freely distributable.
>* Forbid asking for a cash donation or royalty.
If you ask for cash, send a demo program, or if I believe the posting is
in any way an attempt to make money, it gets sent to /dev/null. If I see
a copyright and I can't understand it, the posting gets sent to
/dev/null. If I get something that says "copyright Rando M. Hacker; this
work is in the public domain" it will get sent to /dev/null. In all cases
I'll try to reply and explain why. If I'm really tired and annoyed, the
posting will get squirreled away and probably forgotten about.
In closing, two last points. First, I'm not at all snapping at Joe, and I
hope no one takes it personally. Second, please don't send me mail on
this topic unless you are really really sure you've got something new --
and legally correct! -- to say. I've got a half-megabyte of mail on
copyrights already, plus circulars from the US copyright office.
Okay, three points. :-) I know I have a real wise-ass attitude about this,
and I don't care.
/rich $alz, moderator of comp.sources.unix
--
Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) (07/23/88)
As quoted from <999@fig.bbn.com> by rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz): +--------------- | If you ask for cash, send a demo program, or if I believe the posting is | in any way an attempt to make money, it gets sent to /dev/null. If I see | a copyright and I can't understand it, the posting gets sent to | /dev/null. If I get something that says "copyright Rando M. Hacker; this | work is in the public domain" it will get sent to /dev/null. In all cases | I'll try to reply and explain why. If I'm really tired and annoyed, the | posting will get squirreled away and probably forgotten about. +--------------- Shareware and demos are welcome on comp.sources.misc -- but they will be clearly marked as such in the [] commentary I put at the very top of postings; not everyone feels, as I do, that such postings have value. Also, if I get a posting that says "copyright ... public domain" (a bullsh*t statement; the two are mutually incompatible) I will treat it as PD and strip out the copyright guff entirely to prevent confusion. (If that isn't what the submitter wanted, I suggest they talk to a copyright lawyer and find out the correct way to do whatever it was they wanted to do. As far as I'm concerned, if the author says "public domain" in the submission, it's public domain.) ++Brandon -- the alternative moderator! ;-) -- Brandon S. Allbery, uunet!marque!ncoast!allbery DELPHI: ALLBERY For comp.sources.misc send mail to ncoast!sources-misc