ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (01/01/70)
> By the way, as I read the GNU COPYING rules, they act like an > infection: Suppose I packaged GNU EMACS along with a bunch of > other "free" software into some sort of user-contributed tape. > The GNU rules would spread to cover the entire package. Then > suppose I wanted to distribute the user-contributed tape as a > "freebie" along with an operating system (like Gould's "D4" > tape). I think you're reading the license wrong. The closest part that I see is the comment on including GNU EMACS into your own programs. -Ron
fnf@mcdsun.UUCP (Fred Fish) (01/01/70)
In article <6316@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >By the way, as I read the GNU COPYING rules, they act like an >infection: Suppose I packaged GNU EMACS along with a bunch of >other "free" software into some sort of user-contributed tape. >The GNU rules would spread to cover the entire package. Then >suppose I wanted to distribute the user-contributed tape as a >"freebie" along with an operating system (like Gould's "D4" >tape). The GNU rules would, as I read them, then also >encompass the operating system. As a commercial software Gee, this sure rings a bell. Right after I finished the first port of GNU Emacs to a system V machine when I was at Unisoft, I was investigating the possibility of including it as part of the standard Uniplus+ distribution, (with all the normal GNU requirements for source availability for the GNU Emacs part adhered to of course). I gave a copy of the "COPYING" file to our lawyer, who studied it in some detail and then pronounced that if we included it, it would require us to give away the source to ALL of Uniplus+. I thought he was slightly daffy, but his opinion (which carried more weight than mine :-) effectively killed the idea. So Doug, you have the support of at least one lawyer's opinion on this subject... -Fred -- = Drug tests; just say *NO*! = Fred Fish Motorola Computer Division, 3013 S 52nd St, Tempe, Az 85282 USA = seismo!noao!mcdsun!fnf (602) 438-3614
hollaar@utah-cs.UUCP (01/01/70)
In article <18119@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: > ... but DEC can't even do a simple copyright. It reads >Copyright Company Date instead of Copyright Date Company. Actually, the Copyright Act of 1976 states in 17 USC 401: "(b) Form of Notice. -- The notice appearing on the copies shall consist of the following three elements: (1) the symbol ... (the letter C in a circle), or the word "Copyright" or the abbreviation "Copr."; and (2) the year of the first publication of the work; ... and (3) the name of the owner of the copyright ... (c) Position of Notice. -- ... The Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation, as examples, specific methods for the affixation and positions of the notice on various types of works that will satisfy this requirement, but these specifications shall not be considered exhaustive." So, even though most people seem to mimic the form "copyright date company", the form "copyright company date" (or even "date company copyright") meets the requirements of the Copyright Act. >They also have that other common mistake: "(This software) is supplied >"As Is" without expressed or implied warranty", when I thought the >magic word was "express", not "expressed". (I got this impression from >reading the crypt man page. Anyone know which is correct?) Either form is correct, since what they are disclaiming is either an "express warranty" (a term used in the Uniform Commercial Code to mean a warranty based on the representations of the seller) or an "expressed warranty" (a warranty expressed, or given, by the seller). In the case of DEC, what they are saying is that they have not stated (or expressed) any warranties, and there are no implied warranties. Probably a better source for studying the laws concerning warranties would be the Uniform Commercial Code, or a text on contracts, not the documentation of a computer program. >You may think I'm a nit picker but lawyers are funny people. Best to pick nits when you know what you are discussing. I'm not a lawyer, but sometimes they are "funny" because the law requires very specific things (like the use of a "C in a circle" rather than "(c)"). (My wife IS a lawyer, though, and sometimes I do think she is funny.)
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (08/06/87)
I've seen a lot of software posted to comp.sources.* recently that include (attempted) Copyright notices. I don't know what the point of including such notices in broadcast code is, but I've just been tossing it since if the copyright is legal I cannot make a copy of it to compile, etc. Please cut it out!
chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (08/07/87)
In article <6236@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes: >I've seen a lot of software posted to comp.sources.* recently >that include (attempted) Copyright notices. I don't know what >the point of including such notices in broadcast code is, but >I've just been tossing it since if the copyright is legal I >cannot make a copy of it to compile, etc. Please cut it out! I'm not sure I agree with this at all. Some of the copyright notices are definitely bogus -- if you're going to try to protect your code instead of release it into the public domain, at least learn enough of the legal mumbo-jumbo to do it right. All you're doing otherwise is putting it into the public domain without knowing it, which can be quite embarassing down the road. But some of the copyright notices I've seen are quite reasonable. Adl, for instance, is copyrighted with full permission to use and distribute except for commercial gain. Now, we can argue commercial gain all we want (if I port it to the Mac and sell it to a publisher, I break the copright, but what if I simply port it to a Sun and put it on our distribution tapes? Is that STILL commercial gain? I don't plan on it, because it isn't clear...) My cut on this is that stuff shuold be put into the public domain unless there is a clear reason not to (adl, for instance, has interesting possibilities...). But simply because it is on the broadcast net don't assume that the copyright is invalid. And if the copyright restrictions are unreasonable, either toss the code or talk to the author about it. chuq Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ We live and learn, but not the wiser grow -- John Pomfret (1667-1703)
martyl@rocksvax.UUCP (Marty Leisner) (08/07/87)
In article <6236@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes: >I've seen a lot of software posted to comp.sources.* recently >that include (attempted) Copyright notices. I don't know what >the point of including such notices in broadcast code is, but >I've just been tossing it since if the copyright is legal I >cannot make a copy of it to compile, etc. Please cut it out! I don't think copyright notices inhibit copying. I've come across a lot of free software with copyright notices which state something to the effect "You can do anything you want with this software except sell it or take out this copyright notice". This is as opposed to public domain, where there a no restraints. The above is just an informal understanding. marty leisner xerox corp. leisner.henr@xerox.com martyl@rocksvax.uucp
dce@mips.UUCP (David Elliott) (08/08/87)
In article <229@rocksvax.UUCP> martyl@rocksvax.UUCP (Marty Leisner) writes: > "You can do anything you want with this software except sell > it or take out this copyright notice". My question is: what does it mean to "sell" the software in question? Along with our hardware, we sell two versions of Unix for some price. If we add a piece of copyrighted software obtained from the net, but do not raise the price, are we "selling" the software? What happens if, by coincidence, we increase the price at the same time we add this item? -- David Elliott {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!mips!dce
ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (08/09/87)
Then I suggest that you look towards your own organization. The software that BRL distributes has an erroneous COPYRIGHT notice and smoke screen on it. The U.S. Government can not hold a copyright on anything. Moreover, trying to maintain a proprietary to BRL status on this published code is probably not enforceable provided that the code is not of a defense sensitive nature that should have precluded any distribution to begin with. -Ron
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (08/10/87)
In article <13819@topaz.rutgers.edu> ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes:
-Then I suggest that you look towards your own organization. The
-software that BRL distributes has an erroneous COPYRIGHT notice
-and smoke screen on it. The U.S. Government can not hold a copyright
-on anything. Moreover, trying to maintain a proprietary to BRL status
-on this published code is probably not enforceable provided that the
-code is not of a defense sensitive nature that should have precluded
-any distribution to begin with.
That's all probably true. I don't put any copyright notices on
anything I send out. I'm not responsible for what others here
may do, but I'll forward the information to them. Thanks.martyl@rocksvax.UUCP (Marty Leisner) (08/18/87)
In article <579@quacky.UUCP> dce@quacky.UUCP (David Elliott) writes: >In article <229@rocksvax.UUCP> martyl@rocksvax.UUCP (Marty Leisner) writes: >> "You can do anything you want with this software except sell >> it or take out this copyright notice". > >My question is: what does it mean to "sell" the software in question? > >Along with our hardware, we sell two versions of Unix for some >price. If we add a piece of copyrighted software obtained from >the net, but do not raise the price, are we "selling" the >software? What happens if, by coincidence, we increase the >price at the same time we add this item? Good question. If the software is copyrighted and not public domain, I think you have a problem. You should probably contact the author for permission before distributing it. Distributing "free" copyrighted software with a Unix system is adding value to your Unix package -- which is why the software would be included in the first place. Several micro compiler vendors supply user contributed software with their compilers, along with a message along the order of "John Q. Public gave us permission to distribute his software". marty
drw@cullvax.UUCP (08/18/87)
dce@mips.UUCP (David Elliott) writes: > Along with our hardware, we sell two versions of Unix for some > price. If we add a piece of copyrighted software obtained from > the net, but do not raise the price, are we "selling" the > software? What happens if, by coincidence, we increase the > price at the same time we add this item? I'd guess that if you made clear which part of your distribution is freeware (and your license agreement had better make *that* clear anyway!) and if you either distribute the source, or point people to how they can get the source, you are probably immune from legal action for violating the copyright. Anyway, it seems sensible to me, Dale -- Dale Worley Cullinet Software ARPA: cullvax!drw@eddie.mit.edu UUCP: ...!seismo!harvard!mit-eddie!cullvax!drw OS/2: Yesterday's software tomorrow Nuclear war? There goes my career!
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (08/19/87)
> "You can do anything you want with this software except sell > it or take out this copyright notice". My question is: what does it mean to "sell" the software in question? Along with our hardware, we sell two versions of Unix for some price. If we add a piece of copyrighted software obtained from the net, but do not raise the price, are we "selling" the software? What happens if, by coincidence, we increase the price at the same time we add this item? There is a very simple way to decide if you are selling the software. You are selling a package containing hardware and software. Now ask this question: Do you supply this particular copyrighted software free of charge if somebody chooses *not* to buy the package? In other words, is buying the package the only way somebody can get this software from you? If you answer yes, then you're selling the software. If you disagree with my reasoning, well, I have this automobile that I'm giving away. (Oh, yeah...you are also required to buy a spare fan belt for $10,000.) -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
jim@ci-dandelion.UUCP (Jim Fulton) (08/20/87)
In article <998@bsu-cs.UUCP>, dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: > > > "You can do anything you want with this software except sell > > it or take out this copyright notice". > > My question is: what does it mean to "sell" the software in question? > > ... > > There is a very simple way to decide if you are selling the software. > > You are selling a package containing hardware and software. Now ask > this question: Do you supply this particular copyrighted software free > of charge if somebody chooses *not* to buy the package? In other > words, is buying the package the only way somebody can get this > software from you? If you answer yes, then you're selling the > software. This doesn't take into account that distributing any software requires a lot of effort, most of which is overhead. The incremental costs of adding the unsupported package to an existing distribution may be acceptable whereas setting up a whole new distribution may not be. Just because a company chooses to eat the small costs but not the large ones doesn't necessarily mean that it is "selling" the software. This question gets blurrier though if you propose to pay them for ALL of their overhead (i.e. you are paying for making and administering the tape, not the bits) in return for the software. I suspect, though, that the customer and the supplier would have fairly different opinions on just how much that overhead should be. Jim Fulton Cognition Inc. (a small company)
dce@mips.UUCP (David Elliott) (08/20/87)
In article <998@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >You are selling a package containing hardware and software. Now ask >this question: Do you supply this particular copyrighted software free >of charge if somebody chooses *not* to buy the package? In other >words, is buying the package the only way somebody can get this >software from you? If you answer yes, then you're selling the >software. It isn't that simple, actually. We haven't gone out and packaged the copyrighted software and placed it in our catalog with the word "FREE" next to it, but we haven't stated "we will not supply this software free to anyone that asks". As an example, we honor the GNUemacs agreement by stating that we are willing to give anyone a copy of the GNUemacs that we have in our possession if it doesn't cost us anything to do so. This is because the documentation that comes with it says we have to. Also, you qualify the "get this software" with the words "from you". Why does it have to be "from me"? If the software is free to the public, this "somebody" can get the software from the same place I did. >If you disagree with my reasoning, well, I have this automobile that >I'm giving away. (Oh, yeah...you are also required to buy a spare fan >belt for $10,000.) Actually, I agree with your reasoning more than this example. There are two different views. In one view, you are giving away a car, but requiring that I buy a fan belt. In the other view, you are selling a fan belt and giving away a car with it. On the other hand, I never stated that we would be giving away the software, so I'm not misrepresenting anything. In fact, I see adding software I get off the net to a product as providing a service to customers at no additional cost. I didn't say: I have some software that I'm giving away -- Oh yeah... you are also required to buy the tape to put it on for $10,000. I said: I have this software product, and for no additional charge I have added this stuff that was on the net. I think that the important concept is intent. If I hit someone with my car, it can be considered as anything from an unfortunate accident to first degree murder. It all depends on what I intended to do. -- David Elliott {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!mips!dce
tower@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) (08/20/87)
In article <25095@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > In article <6236@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes: > >I've seen a lot of software posted to comp.sources.* recently > >that include (attempted) Copyright notices. I don't know what > >the point of including such notices in broadcast code is, but > >I've just been tossing it since if the copyright is legal I > >cannot make a copy of it to compile, etc. Please cut it out! Maybe the moderators should do some filtering on copyright notices?? > But some of the copyright notices I've seen are quite reasonable. For example, the Copyright notices on GNU Software (example below). > My cut on this is that stuff shuold be put into the public domain unless > there is a clear reason not to (adl, for instance, has interesting > possibilities...). But simply because it is on the broadcast net don't > assume that the copyright is invalid. And if the copyright restrictions are > unreasonable, either toss the code or talk to the author about it. My preference for this stuff is that software should be made freely redistributable, and be legally protected by Copyright Notices et.al. to keep it freely redistributable. Oh, for a copy of the GNU Public License or further information on the project contact <gnu@prep.ai.mit.edu> aka <..!ucbvax.!prep.ai.mit.edu!gnu> enjoy -len # Makefile for GNU C compiler. # Copyright (C) 1987 Free Software Foundation, Inc. #This file is part of GNU CC. #GNU CC is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, #but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY. No author or distributor #accepts responsibility to anyone for the consequences of using it #or for whether it serves any particular purpose or works at all, #unless he says so in writing. Refer to the GNU CC General Public #License for full details. #Everyone is granted permission to copy, modify and redistribute #GNU CC, but only under the conditions described in the #GNU CC General Public License. A copy of this license is #supposed to have been given to you along with GNU CC so you #can know your rights and responsibilities. It should be in a #file named COPYING. Among other things, the copyright notice #and this notice must be preserved on all copies. -- Len Tower, Distributed Systems Group, Boston University, 111 Cummington Street, Boston, MA 02215, USA +1 (617) 353-2780 Home: 36 Porter Street, Somerville, MA 02143, USA +1 (617) 623-7739 UUCP: {}!harvard!bu-cs!tower INTERNET: tower@bu-cs.bu.edu
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (08/21/87)
In article <12133@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, tower@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes: > In article <25095@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > > In article <6236@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes: > > >I've seen a lot of software posted to comp.sources.* recently > > >that include (attempted) Copyright notices. I don't know what > > >the point of including such notices in broadcast code is, but > > >I've just been tossing it since if the copyright is legal I > > >cannot make a copy of it to compile, etc. Please cut it out! > > Maybe the moderators should do some filtering on copyright notices?? Moderators should not change copyright notices. Moderators can always refuse to post things that don't meet their ``standards''. I would back moderators being more picky about what they put in their groups if there was a reasonable alternative place for people who disagree. > ...My preference for this stuff is that software should be made freely > redistributable, and be legally protected by Copyright Notices et.al. > to keep it freely redistributable. ... My preference is for people who give gifts to give them without strings attached. Using copyright to ensure that one's name is always associated with a piece of software is akin to writing one's name on a dollar bill before putting it in the collection plate. Using copyright to alter the economics of software distribution is interesting but (while perhaps done with good intension) is not justified by the resulting confusion (fighting fire with fire means putting out a fire with a flame thrower, which is something that doesn't seem like a particularly good idea). [Of course those of you who were at one time part of the sources mailing list will doubtless recall that I myself have used copyright to ensure that my name was removed from the software should anyone modify it.] ------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)
ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (08/21/87)
GNU is not as much of a problem as other USENET distributed "Copyright"
but "free-except-for" software. The GNU copyright notice does not state
that you must "distrubute for free", it says if you do distribute, it
must be for distribution charges only, and that you must not restrict
the people you give it to from the freedom to give it away as well.
GNU spells this out clearly in their COPYRIGHT notice. It is very
well set up to keep the code self-propagating. I would never have
any qualms about picking up GNU-ware. However these randomly copyrighted
things in the sources groups and even MAC Shareware is even more
up in the air. There is no careful wording and that is what cause
people problems. Users are probably safe because people who create
ambiguity generally have the ambiguity ruled against them if it ever
comes to court, but many paranoid people, especially large companies
and Universities which have recently been chosen as fat targets for
infringement suits, are unwilling to take that risk.
I thank Robert Stallman. Perhaps more useful than GNU EMACS will ever
be in the long run (who knows what text editors will look like in 5 years?),
the GNU COPYING file is likely to be a lasting piece of work. I provide
it here, for those who haven't had the oppurtunity to see it yet.
----------------------------------------------------------
GNU EMACS GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
(Clarified 20 March 1987)
Copyright (C) 1985, 1987 Richard M. Stallman
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license, but changing it is not allowed.
The license agreements of most software companies keep you at the
mercy of those companies. By contrast, our general public license is
intended to give everyone the right to share GNU Emacs. To make
sure that you get the rights we want you to have, we need to make
restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you
to surrender the rights. Hence this license agreement.
Specifically, we want to make sure that you have the right to give
away copies of Emacs, that you receive source code or else can get it
if you want it, that you can change Emacs or use pieces of it in new
free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
To make sure that everyone has such rights, we have to forbid you to
deprive anyone else of these rights. For example, if you distribute
copies of Emacs, you must give the recipients all the rights that you
have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must tell them their rights.
Also, for our own protection, we must make certain that everyone
finds out that there is no warranty for GNU Emacs. If Emacs is
modified by someone else and passed on, we want its recipients to know
that what they have is not what we distributed, so that any problems
introduced by others will not reflect on our reputation.
Therefore we (Richard Stallman and the Free Software Fundation,
Inc.) make the following terms which say what you must do to be
allowed to distribute or change GNU Emacs.
COPYING POLICIES
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of GNU Emacs source
code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously
and appropriately publish on each file a valid copyright notice such
as "Copyright (C) 1986 Free Software Foundation", containing the year of
last change and name of copyright holder for the file in question;
keep intact the notices on all files that refer to this License
Agreement and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other
recipients of the GNU Emacs program a copy of this License Agreement
along with the program. You may charge a distribution fee for the
physical act of transferring a copy.
2. You may modify your copy or copies of GNU Emacs source code or
any portion of it, and copy and distribute such modifications under
the terms of Paragraph 1 above, provided that you also do the following:
a) cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
who last changed such files and the date of any change; and
b) cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish,
that in whole or in part contains or is a derivative of GNU Emacs
or any part thereof, to be licensed at no charge to all third
parties on terms identical to those contained in this License
Agreement (except that you may choose to grant more extensive
warranty protection to third parties, at your option).
c) if the modified program serves as a text editor, cause it when
started running in the simplest and usual way, to print an
announcement including a valid copyright notice ("Copyright (C)",
the year of authorship, and all copyright owners' names), saying
that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a
warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these
conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License Agreement.
d) You may charge a distribution fee for the physical act of
transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty
protection in exchange for a fee.
3. You may copy and distribute GNU Emacs or any portion of it in
compiled, executable or object code form under the terms of Paragraphs
1 and 2 above provided that you do the following:
a) cause each such copy of GNU Emacs to be accompanied by the
corresponding machine-readable source code; or
b) cause each such copy of GNU Emacs to be accompanied by a
written offer, with no time limit, to give any third party
free (except for a nominal shipping charge) machine readable
copy of the corresponding source code; or
c) in the case of a recipient of GNU Emacs in compiled, executable
or object code form (without the corresponding source code) you
shall cause copies you distribute to be accompanied by a copy
of the written offer of source code which you received along
with the copy of GNU Emacs.
4. You may not copy, sublicense, distribute or transfer GNU Emacs
except as expressly provided under this License Agreement. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, sublicense, distribute or transfer GNU Emacs is void and
your rights to use GNU Emacs under this License agreement shall be
automatically terminated. However, parties who have received computer
software programs from you with this License Agreement will not have
their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
5. If you wish to incorporate parts of GNU Emacs into other free programs
whose distribution conditions are different, write to the Free Software
Foundation. We have not yet worked out a simple rule that can be stated
here, but we will often permit this. We will be guided by the two goals of
preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and of
promoting the sharing and reuse of software.
Your comments and suggestions about our licensing policies and our
software are welcome! Please contact the Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
1000 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02138, or call (617) 876-3296.
NO WARRANTY
BECAUSE GNU EMACS IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, WE PROVIDE ABSOLUTELY
NO WARRANTY, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE STATE LAW. EXCEPT
WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING, FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION, INC,
RICHARD M. STALLMAN AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE GNU EMACS "AS IS"
WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY
AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE GNU EMACS
PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY
SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW WILL FREE SOFTWARE
FOUNDATION, INC., RICHARD M. STALLMAN, AND/OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY
MODIFY AND REDISTRIBUTE GNU EMACS AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY LOST PROFITS, LOST MONIES, OR OTHER
SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR
INABILITY TO USE (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA
BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY THIRD PARTIES OR A
FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH PROGRAMS NOT DISTRIBUTED BY
FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION, INC.) THE PROGRAM, EVEN IF YOU HAVE BEEN
ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, OR FOR ANY CLAIM BY ANY
OTHER PARTY.ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (08/21/87)
> > Maybe the moderators should do some filtering on copyright notices?? > Moderators should not change copyright notices. Moderators can always > refuse to post things that don't meet their ``standards''. I would > back moderators being more picky about what they put in their groups > if there was a reasonable alternative place for people who disagree. I think what the original poster meant was that the moderators should filter out messages with questionable copyright notices on them, rather than filtering out the copyright notices themselves. A cheap method, reportedly used on STARGATE, just neglects to post any message that has a copyright notice in it. -Ron
gwyn@brl-smoke.UUCP (08/22/87)
In article <14134@topaz.rutgers.edu> ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: >I think what the original poster meant was that the moderators should >filter out messages with questionable copyright notices on them, rather >than filtering out the copyright notices themselves. Yes, or something like that. I would actually hope that people wouldn't insert them in the first place. Normal professional ethics should suffice insofar as making sure proper credit is given and is not lost in future revisions. By the way, as I read the GNU COPYING rules, they act like an infection: Suppose I packaged GNU EMACS along with a bunch of other "free" software into some sort of user-contributed tape. The GNU rules would spread to cover the entire package. Then suppose I wanted to distribute the user-contributed tape as a "freebie" along with an operating system (like Gould's "D4" tape). The GNU rules would, as I read them, then also encompass the operating system. As a commercial software developer (hypothetically), I would not be able to derive income from my work on the operating system. Such terms would certainly cause me to not include GNU EMACS in ANY software package, to avoid starting a plague. That somehow does not seem to be what the rules were trying to achieve, which I think was supposed to be the spread of Stallman's socialist notions about intellectual property (software, at least). Of course, the above scenario is oversimplified; in practice, the large software package would probably contain items that conflicted in their legal demands; who knows what the resolution would be in a court of law.
lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) (08/22/87)
I don't think that ANYONE should mess with a copyright notice other than the original author. If a moderator, or anyone else for that matter, has a problem with the terminology in a source listing, they certainly have the right to delete the source or send back a request for further clarification, etc. But even if the format and other info is incorrect, I dont believe that there is a legal right to mess with it. P.S. I noticed some stuff posted in one of the groups recently where the poster posted a message with copy right info and then several msgs with the supposedly copyrighted info. I dont think that this will cut it. I believe that EACH copy of an item must have its own copyright hard coded or printed in/on it. Thus if you are using a shar or arc format, each extracted item must have the actual copyright string. The conditions for usage might be able to be localized, with perhaps a brief note specifying where one might find the localized info... -- Larry W. Virden 75046,606 (CIS) 674 Falls Place, Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 (614) 864-8817 cbosgd!n8emr!lwv HAM/SWL BBS (HBBS) 614-457-4227.. 300/1200 bps We haven't inherited the world from our parents, but borrowed it from our children.
lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) (08/22/87)
I would CERTAINLY hope that the software also informs the individual that the software is somehow offensive to the posting software. If I was attempting to post a message informing the world of an imminent disaster and it was arbitrarily rejected because somewhere within the text of the discussion that C word was used, I would be horrified, if not outraged. P.S. Does anyone out there have a LEGAL definition of what copyright really means? I don't think that copyright means that the author can decide how something is distributed; copyright in and of itself simply states who owns the document in question. I believe that there is some other term that should be used for the conditional release statements that many folks use. -- Larry W. Virden 75046,606 (CIS) 674 Falls Place, Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 (614) 864-8817 cbosgd!n8emr!lwv HAM/SWL BBS (HBBS) 614-457-4227.. 300/1200 bps We haven't inherited the world from our parents, but borrowed it from our children.
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (08/23/87)
In article <14152@topaz.rutgers.edu>, ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: > > [someone else]: > > By the way, as I read the GNU COPYING rules, they act like an > > infection: Suppose I packaged GNU EMACS along with a bunch of > > other "free" software into some sort of user-contributed tape. > > The GNU rules would spread to cover the entire package. Then > > suppose I wanted to distribute the user-contributed tape as a > > "freebie" along with an operating system (like Gould's "D4" > > tape). > > I think you're reading the license wrong. The closest part that > I see is the comment on including GNU EMACS into your own programs. [generic disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and both me and the lawyers seem happy with that.] Even more fun, think about compiling GNU C in on some other C compiler. At any given time, a snapshot of the compiler execution would include pieces of Gnu code in buffers. Since in a language like C, the distinction between instruction and data is highly artificial, the compiler probably falls under the GNU license during that time period. Also, since the resulting binary is a translation, isn't the compiler responsible for transferring appropriate license information as well (not that that is our worry, since GNU now licenses both compilers)? ---- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutger.edu!" M"
ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap) (08/23/87)
All this talk of filtering out sources that don't have "proper" copyright notices on them has ignored why authors put conditions in software they give out. In the case of TeX sources, which says only DEK is allowed to modify, that is because Knuth doesn't want multiple, unofficial base versions running around. There is a mechanism for making "patches" with "tangle". The Kermit software is copyrighted, but is freely redistributable. There is however an exhortation to use Kermit for peaceful purposes. In the case of the notices on my insignificant software, I generally have in mind two things: I don't want commercial interests making money off it by claiming it as theirs, assuming it would even interest them in the first place, and I would prefer not to see my software used for millitary purposes. OK, so it's a political statement. But if you think about it, there is no way I can afford to come sue you. And even if I did, it would be impossible for a court to decide if that time you ran your 5000 line assembler program for a tank-tracking system through my shell script was a violation. I'd just get laughed out of court. So if you think I'm saying such copyright conditions are well nigh impossible to enforce, you're right. But that doesn't mean they are silly. The author is communicating her wishes about how the software should be used. Personally I'm grateful to software developers who give us good stuff like Kermit and I am willing to go along with reasonable conditions, or, in case of doubt, to try to adhere to the spirit of the conditions. Ken
philm@astroatc.UUCP (Phil Mason) (08/23/87)
In article <224@n8emr.UUCP> lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) writes: >I don't think that ANYONE should mess with a copyright notice other than >the original author. If a moderator, or anyone else for that matter, has >a problem with the terminology in a source listing, they certainly have the >right to delete the source or send back a request for further clarification, >etc. But even if the format and other info is incorrect, I dont believe >that there is a legal right to mess with it. However, there have been plenty of programs posted on USENET with rather uninformed, naive and/or totally worthless copyright notices affixed to them. In some cases authors have "placed the code in the public domain" and in the same sentence attempted to "restrict commericial use" of the software. If a piece of work is placed in the public domain and is published or distributed, the author no longer has any more rights to the work at all. All of the music of Johann Sebastian Bach is in the public domain - you can, if you really want to be crass, legally publish them under your own name as if you wrote them. Legally, a correct copyright notice does protect your rights as the author of a work, such as a program. Realistically, in an environment such as the USENET community, it is very difficult to fully protect your legal rights when your software is widely distributed to both people who respect your copyright notice and people who do not. Considering the number of countries that have sites on USENET, your software could be sold commericially in another country for years and you'd never hear of it! There are some countries out there that have different copyright laws, at least one of which I know has NONE at this time (to the chagrin of the international community). If you intend to post your work on USENET and really care enough about its potential commericial value to place a copyright notice on it and do not have a vast amount of funds reserved to aggressively prosecute violators of your copyright, my advice is to not post it. Really what we have here is an honor system. I haven't heard of anybody prosecuting anyone else over use of software posted on USENET - but that doen't mean that somebody isn't going to prosecute in the future. Summary : (1) Public Domain means you have given up all rights to the work, no ifs, ands or buts. (2) Know your legal rights and how to protect them properly BEFORE YOU POST. (3) The people who utilize software on USENET are effectively bound only by an honor system since copyright litigation is so expensive as to be out of the question for most posters, especially for international cases. -- Kirk : Bones ? | Phil Mason, Astronautics Technology Center Bones : He's dead Jim. | Madison, Wisconsin - "Eat Cheese or Die!" ...seismo-uwvax-astroatc!philm | I would really like to believe that my ...ihnp4-nicmad/ | employer shares all my opinions, but . . .
jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) (08/24/87)
In article <1598@sol.ARPA>, ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap) writes: > The Kermit software is copyrighted, but is freely redistributable. > There is however an exhortation to use Kermit for peaceful purposes. Does this mean that I can't install Kermit on my MVS host and use it for file transfers to a PC, since I work for a defense contractor (Rockwell Shuttle Operations Company)? -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC...>splut!< | uucp: hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!nuchat!splut!jay "Don't ask ME about Unix... | (or sun!housun!nuchat) CI$: 71036,1603 I speak SNA!" | internet: beats me GEnie: JAYMAYNARD The opinions herein are shared by neither of my cats, much less anyone else.
gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (08/25/87)
I finished building the next Sun User Group contributed software
tape last month, and my perspective on software copyrights comes
from both the "collector's" point of view as well as the "author's"
and "user's".
As a collector, we don't want to get into trouble. Distributing
somebody's commercial software by accident could shut us down if they
wanted to get really nasty about it. As a result, we send
out forms and get people to sign them and send 'em back in to us.
The forms basically authorize us to distribute the software and
say that the person signing will "take the rap" if it's later found
out that, through untrue statements they make on the form, we get sued.
[AT&T Unix licensing adds another unrelated wrinkle here -- we get people
to guarantee that the code is not derived from licensed software too.]
There are a few things that I checked up pretty thoroughly and they are
public domain. For these, if I couldn't get the author(s) to sign off
on them, I signed the form and am personally responsible (rather than
the Sun User Group). If we used had any software from the Free
Software Foundation, I would've okayed it, since I know the origin of
the software and the terms are clearly written. The rest of it, no
matter what its copyright notice said, won't be distributed unless we
can contact the author, because we can't afford to make a mistake.
The copyright notices on most free software I've seen are pretty bad.
Others have given examples, like "public domain, don't sell it". Even
the ones that say "copyright by me, don't sell it" have not thought
things through. Is the Sun User Group selling your software? We charge
$100 for a tape. We make more money than we lose at it (partly because
the labor of collecting software is mostly volunteer.) Are we
selling it? Is it OK for us to distribute your prized software? WE HAVE
NO IDEA! So we end up having to contact you anyway. You might as well
have said "copyright by me, all rights reserved".
If you haven't thought through what uses you want your software put to,
DON'T POST IT. Slapping an untidy copyright on it and posting it will
(1) limit people who might have been able to do something with it
otherwise; (2) not protect you if you ever DO want to sue somebody,
since you probably didn't make a solid copyright; and (3) have no
effect on the people who copy no matter what your copyright or
instructions say. The only people you'll stop are the honest ones --
and they're the ones you're trying to help!
I recommend putting things that you care little about into the public domain,
explicitly (say "I, Joe Blow, the author, place this software and documentation
into the public domain.") You can do it by leaving out a copyright, but
this method has two good effects. It clarifies the status, and it tells
us who the author is, so we can contact you to make sure if necessary.
Public domain stuff causes the least hassle to future users, since they
don't have to check back with you once they're sure it really is PD.
Also, when you are tired of hearing about the software, any interested
people can just pick it up and start maintaining and distributing it.
Other things that fall into this category are stuff that you WANT people
to commercialize. I did this with my PD tar, and a few places have
picked it up in their software releases.
For things where you care what use it is put to, I recommend using a
valid copyright ("Copyright 1987 by John Gilmore") in each file of the
distribution, and a statement like "Copying and use governed by the GNU
Emacs General Public License". Somewhere in the distribution you
should include a copy of the license, or a pointer to the Free Software
Foundation so people can get a copy. That license was written by a
lawyer and it works. I'm using this method with uuslave (now evolving
into "gnuucp") because I want to make sure the sources remain available
to the public as people evolve it. Like public domain, this method
also protects the software from your boredom.
I don't recommend writing your own copyright terms. If you care enough
to do this, hire a lawyer for an hour or two to write the terms for
you. I'm serious. If clearly explaining what you want done with your
code (with teeth that you can enforce in court if necessary) isn't
worth $200 in legal fees to you, just put your wishes into the README
and put the whole thing into the public domain. The only difference
between copyright terms and a statement of wishes is that you can sue over
the copyright, so hire the lawyer to protect your right to sue. Without
her help, you'll probably blow it.
A lot of people have a deathly fear that they'll write the next
VisiCalc and donate it to the net, and somebody will get *rich* over it
and they'll never get a cent. Guess again, guys. Anybody who gets
rich from software ends up doing a lot of work -- the work you didn't
want to do, since rather than building a software company, you posted
the stuff to the net. Hell, building the Sun User Group tape cost many
weeks of labor by me and several other people, and that was just
locating, collecting, and collating. If we wanted to get rich, we'd
better support the software, fix bugs, answer the phone, add the latest
features from the competition, port it to the latest machines, etc. If
YOU aren't willing to go to all that work, how about letting somebody
who WANTS TO do the work make some money from it? Likely, nobody will
want to do it anyway, and your restrictions will just hinder people.
(One outstanding counterexample is James Gosling's Unix Emacs; he kept
his stuff clearly copyright, while handing it out to many people, and
eventually licensed it to Unipress, who maintains it and sends him
royalties. But I have about 600 megs of stuff that nobody wants to
maintain, not even me...) Note that the GNU general public license
lets anyone sell the sources of GNU stuff for any price. But if
somebody hacks it up, makes it really great, and sells the sources for
an outrageous price, you can always buy one copy at the outrageous
price and then turn around and sell 10 copies for 1/8th the price,
because the GNU license doesn't let them prevent you from passing it on
after you buy it from them. I like this effect -- it leaves the honest
people free to pass it around and use it, while effectively limiting
the exploitation possiblity. Like I said above, it's written by a
lawyer and it works.
You're the author -- you get to decide. Just t a k e s o m e t i m e
to think about what you really want before slapping a random copyright on
your work.
--
{dasys1,ncoast,well,sun,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@postgres.berkeley.edu
My name's in the header where it belongs.ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap) (08/26/87)
|> There is however an exhortation to use Kermit for peaceful purposes. | |Does this mean that I can't install Kermit on my MVS host and use it for |file transfers to a PC, since I work for a defense contractor (Rockwell |Shuttle Operations Company)? As I pointed out, this is practically impossible to enforce. I suspect that, like many other authors, the Kermit authors put this in so that people would pause and think about what use computer tools are put to. Ken
kyle@xanth.UUCP (08/27/87)
In article <357@mcdsun.UUCP> fnf@mcdsun.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: . . . . . . . . . . . I gave a copy of the "COPYING" > file to our lawyer, who studied it in some detail and then pronounced > that if we included it, it would require us to give away the source > to ALL of Uniplus+. I thought he was slightly daffy, but his opinion > (which carried more weight than mine :-) effectively killed the idea. > So Doug, you have the support of at least one lawyer's opinion on this > subject... Amazing, especially since Berkeley distributed GNU Emacs with 4.3 BSD. I have to agree: Section 2b of the GNU Public License seem to imply that the terms of the License must spread to cover other software that GNU is distributed with. I suppose only time and litigation will bear this out. kyle jones <kyle@odu.edu> old dominion university, norfolk, va
mohamed@hscfvax.UUCP (750025@Mohamed_el_Lozy) (08/27/87)
In article <2267@xanth.UUCP> kyle@xanth.UUCP (Kyle Jones) writes: >In article <357@mcdsun.UUCP> fnf@mcdsun.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: >. . . . . . . . . . . I gave a copy of the "COPYING" >> file to our lawyer, who studied it in some detail and then pronounced >> that if we included it, it would require us to give away the source >> to ALL of Uniplus+. > >Amazing, especially since Berkeley distributed GNU Emacs with 4.3 BSD. The current 2.0 release of Ultrix also contains a gnuemacs tar file. Since DEC lawyers are certainly careful they must have concluded that it was safe to do so. Of course, if they are wrong, that might put all of Ultrix in the public domain!!!!! On the other hand, the gnuemacs distribution is on the unsupported software tape, which I believe does not contain any proprietary software. So perhaps there is indeed a problem.
Karl.Kleinpaste@cbstr1.att.com (08/27/87)
kyle@xanth.UUCP writes:
I have to agree: Section 2b of the GNU Public License seem to imply that
the terms of the License must spread to cover other software that GNU is
distributed with.
That's very interesting; I hadn't noticed that implication of section
2b before. But I just re-read it, and I can see how one might get the
impression that everything with which GNU software is distributed
must also be covered by the GNU license.
It would seem that a trivial fix to the problem for individual
companies wanting to include GNU Emacs as "contributed software" would
be to deliver it separately in some way, that is, not fundamentally
bundled in with the rest of the software for which they wish to retain
their proprietary rights.
Perhaps that is why Berkeley included it on the "user-contributed
software" tape, separate from the essentials of 4.3BSD.
Karlmerlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (David S. Hayes) (08/28/87)
In article <579@quacky.UUCP>, dce@mips.UUCP (David Elliott) writes: > If we add a piece of copyrighted software obtained from > the net, but do not raise the price, are we "selling" the > software? If someone buys your Unix, you give them the network software as well, on the same tape. Some of the price is for the Unix license, and some is for media costs, and some is for your profit. I think you can meet the spirit of the author's intent by making the network software available to everyone, not just your customers. Of course, you might require some minimal media charge from others. If the software is available without buying the Unix package, I don't think anyone would claim that you're selling it. -- David S. Hayes, The Merlin of Avalon PhoneNet: (202) 694-6900 UUCP: *!seismo!sundc!hqda-ai!merlin ARPA: merlin%hqda-ai@seismo.css.gov
ralph@ralmar.UUCP (Ralph Barker) (08/28/87)
In article <2267@xanth.UUCP>, kyle@xanth.UUCP (Kyle Jones) writes: > In article <357@mcdsun.UUCP> fnf@mcdsun.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: > . . . . . . . . . . . I gave a copy of the "COPYING" > > file to our lawyer, who studied it in some detail and then pronounced > > that if we included it, it would require us to give away the source > > to ALL of Uniplus+. I thought he was slightly daffy, but ..... > > Amazing, especially since Berkeley distributed GNU Emacs with 4.3 BSD. > > I have to agree: Section 2b of the GNU Public License seem to imply that > the terms of the License must spread to cover other software that GNU is > distributed with. I suppose only time and litigation will bear this out. In describing his "Copyleft" at a recent SVNet (a San Francisco Bay Area UNIX User's Group) meeting, Richard Stallman seemed to indicate that the "spreading" effect of the GNU "Copyleft" would apply to software of which GNU Emacs was made an integral part by the distributor, but NOT to programs which "a reasonable" person would deem to be a separate, functional work. I took his explanation to mean that if your program worked without Emacs, i.e. "on its own", then you could copyright it. Or, conversely, if your program REQUIRED GNU Emacs in order to function, then you would have to "Copyleft" it. (Is "Copyleft" a copyrighted term?):-) -- Ralph Barker, RALMAR Business Systems, 640 So Winchester Blvd, San Jose,CA 95128 uucp: ...{pyramid, sun}!amdahl!unixprt----\ !ralmar!ralph ...{ucbvax,hplabs}!sun!idi---/ Voice: (408) 248-8649
phil@amdcad.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (08/29/87)
In article <455@hscfvax.UUCP> mohamed@hscfvax.UUCP (750025@Mohamed_el_Lozy) writes: >The current 2.0 release of Ultrix also contains a gnuemacs tar file. >Since DEC lawyers are certainly careful they must have concluded >that it was safe to do so. I wouldn't go by that. The deqna driver included in 4.3 BSD (/sys/vaxif/if_qe.c) is licensed from DEC and is allegedly DEC property but DEC can't even do a simple copyright. It reads Copyright Company Date instead of Copyright Date Company. They also have that other common mistake: "(This software) is supplied "As Is" without expressed or implied warranty", when I thought the magic word was "express", not "expressed". (I got this impression from reading the crypt man page. Anyone know which is correct?) You may think I'm a nit picker but lawyers are funny people. -- I speak for myself, not the company. Phil Ngai, {ucbvax,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!phil or amdcad!phil@decwrl.dtors. .
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (08/29/87)
Somebody said:
I gave a copy of the "COPYING" file to our lawyer, who studied it
in some detail and then pronounced that if we included it, it
would require us to give away the source to ALL of Uniplus+.
ralph@ralmar.UUCP (Ralph Barker) writes:
In describing his "Copyleft" at a recent...meeting, Richard
Stallman seemed to indicate that the "spreading" effect of the GNU
"Copyleft" would apply to software of which GNU Emacs was made an
integral part by the distributor, but NOT to programs which "a
reasonable" person would deem to be a separate, functional work.
What Stallman said might help you understand his intentions, but it has
no effect on what a court of law interprets the Gnu License to mean.
There is seldom any point in asking somebody to verbally explain what
he means by a contract he offers you. Ask for any clarification to be
put in writing and made a part of the contract. If it isn't part
of the contract, it's irrelevant.
--
Rahul Dhesi UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesiphil@amdcad.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (09/01/87)
In article <4875@utah-cs.UUCP> hollaar@cs.utah.edu.UUCP (Lee Hollaar) writes:
<Actually, the Copyright Act of 1976 states in 17 USC 401:
<"(b) Form of Notice. -- The notice appearing on the copies shall consist
<of the following three elements:
< (1) the symbol ... (the letter C in a circle), or the word "Copyright"
< or the abbreviation "Copr."; and
< (2) the year of the first publication of the work; ... and
< (3) the name of the owner of the copyright ...
<(c) Position of Notice. -- ... The Register of Copyrights shall prescribe
<by regulation, as examples, specific methods for the affixation and
<positions of the notice on various types of works that will satisfy this
<requirement, but these specifications shall not be considered exhaustive."
<
<So, even though most people seem to mimic the form "copyright date company",
<the form "copyright company date" (or even "date company copyright") meets
<the requirements of the Copyright Act.
I may have posted too quickly, I'll have to check, but I don't see
that your quote addresses the question. You seem to be taking section
C as indicating that the position of the elements of the notice may
vary, but I would read it as indicating the position of the notice
(which is made up of three elements) may vary, whether it is on the
cover of the book or the title page or whatever.
--
I speak for myself, not the company.
Phil Ngai, {ucbvax,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!phil or amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.comron@topaz.rutgers.edu.UUCP (09/01/87)
Actually, section c is inconsequential. The notice points out that you must have three elements, implying that order is unimportant and that things like superluous punctioation (or (c)'s) do not affect the notice. -RON