john@prism.TMC.COM (03/11/88)
XXXXXX --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following letter was dictated to me over the phone by Rex Bradford, who is the author of the MEAN18 golf program recently posted on Usenet. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As the author of MEAN18, I was understandably mortified to find that a pirated copy has appeared on Usenet. In case there is any confusion regarding the copyright status of this program, let me clear it up: MEAN18, marketed by Accolade Inc., is a proprietary product, is copy-protected, and includes a copyright notice on its title screen. There is not and never has been a "public domain" version. The fact that illegal copies of software show up on bulletin boards is no excuse for anyone to assume that they are public domain. There are many "pirate boards" in existence: Usenet should not be one of them. Mr. Schmitt's claim of ignorance has no credibility given the software's copyright notice and its high visibility in the marketplace (MEAN18 is carried in all major software chains, and sold mail-order by PC Connection, 47th St. Photo, etc.). I greatly appreciate the Usenet community's reaction to this incident, and hope that members will get the word out to remove this pirated software. I make my living by creating software like MEAN18, and this episode has not made my day. I encourage anyone who tried the program and liked it, to purchase a legal copy--the current version includes support for Hercules, and EGA, and looks much prettier on the EGA. By the way, course data files which users create using the COURSE ARCHITECT program in the MEAN18 package may be distributed freely (without including MEAN18, of course). Note that this does not apply to FAMOUS COURSE DISKS sold by Accolade Inc., which are also proprietary. I think having a moderator for binary conferences is a good idea. While it may be impossible to effectively screen viruses, it is relatively easy to spot copyrighted software and keep it off the nets. 7) Sorry for the long posting--I hope this has cleared up what little confusion there may have been on this matter. Rex Bradford President, MicroSmiths Inc. ----------------------------------------------------------------- I will be happy to forward Usenet responses, Email, and snail mail replies sent in care of me, to Rex. John Dowd Mirror Systems, Inc. 2067 Massachusetts Ave Cambridge MA 02140 ---- JOHN DOWD john@mirror.TMC.COM {mit-eddie, ihnp4, harvard!wjh12, cca, cbosgd, seismo}!mirror!john Mirror Systems Cambridge, MA 02140
che@pbhyf.UUCP (Mitch Che) (03/11/88)
In article <235400004@prism> john@prism.TMC.COM writes: >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >The following letter was dictated to me over the phone by Rex Bradford, who >is the author of the MEAN18 golf program recently posted on Usenet. > .... Mr. Schmitt's claim of ignorance has > no credibility given the software's copyright notice and its high > visibility in the marketplace (MEAN18 is carried in all major > software chains, and sold mail-order by PC Connection, 47th St. > Photo, etc.). There is no question this was an unfortunate incident, but Mr. Bradford seems to have an extraordinary regard for the popularity of his own software by implying that Mr. Schmitt isn't being straight with netreaders by his explanation of his mistake. I've never heard of MEAN18 before, and I'm sure neither has the majority of Usenet readers. Also, almost every piece of software I've come across in the "Public Domain" has been copyrighted. A copyright isn't a reliable indicator that a piece of software is going to be sold or found in a store. -- Mitch Che Pacific Bell "Fine Corinthian leather? Of course. --------------------------------------- From fine Corinthian cows..." disclaimer, disclaimer, too 415-823-2454 uucp:ames!ptsfa!pbhyf!che
pete@tsc.dec.com (Pete Schmitt) (03/12/88)
In article <235400004@prism>, john@prism.TMC.COM writes: > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The following letter was dictated to me over the phone by Rex Bradford, who > is the author of the MEAN18 golf program recently posted on Usenet. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > There are many "pirate boards" in existence The particular board this came from was one being run by a Junior High School for the benefit of the students. I truly doubt it is a pirate board. After I left a message to the Sysop that the software was not PD, he removed it. The board does have access to everyone who has the number, so anyone could have uploaded there, and probably did thinking that it was PD. disclaimer: these opinions are mine and mine alone, not that of the company I work for.
john@prism.TMC.COM (03/15/88)
>...Also, almost >every piece of software I've come across in the "Public Domain" has been >copyrighted. A copyright isn't a reliable indicator that a piece of >software is going to be sold or found in a store. Oh, come on. A copyright is a reliable indicator that a piece of software is copyrighted, and that is all you need to know, if you are thinking about copying it for public distribution. Otherwise, what does a copyright notice mean? It is not necessary to also say: "Hey, not only is this copyrighted, but like, we really mean it, OK? Like, you should not COPY it without permission, and like, this is not to be confused with your everyday public domain program that you can post on public bulletin boards." ---- JOHN DOWD john@mirror.TMC.COM {mit-eddie, ihnp4, harvard!wjh12, cca, cbosgd, seismo}!mirror!john Mirror Systems Cambridge, MA 02140
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (03/15/88)
In article <235400004@prism> john@prism.TMC.COM writes: >The following letter was dictated to me over the phone by Rex Bradford, who >is the author of the MEAN18 golf program recently posted on Usenet. > should not be one of them. Mr. Schmitt's claim of ignorance has > no credibility given the software's copyright notice and its high > visibility in the marketplace (MEAN18 is carried in all major One should be aware of software that has had copyright noticed removed. I've seen plenty of copyrighted software that not only had the copyright notice removed, but also had notices installed that said the program was public domain. Something like this is bound to happen sooner or later. The correct thing to do is for the poster to apologise and issue a cancel message. I believe that this has already been done. Sean -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet *** The Empire Maniac {rutgers,uunet,cbosgd}!ukma!sean *** University of Kentucky / Lexington Kentucky / USA *** "Ludo... FRIEND!"
che@pbhyf.UUCP (Mitch Che) (03/16/88)
In article <235400005@prism> john@prism.TMC.COM writes: >Oh, come on. A copyright is a reliable indicator that a piece of software is >copyrighted, and that is all you need to know, if you are thinking about >copying it for public distribution. Otherwise, what does a copyright notice What? Copyright and public distribution have nothing to do with each other. I can choose to distribute material that I have copyrighted in the public domain. I do not have to give up "copyrights" (so to speak) to place something in the public domain. If John is implying copyright has something to do with being purchased in a store or by mail order (and not being legally "copyable"), then there are a lot of authors of public domain and shared software who want to talk with John, 'cause they ain't about to give up their copyrights... -- Mitch Che Pacific Bell "Tape librarians will mount anything." --------------------------------------- Computerworld disclaimer, disclaimer, too 415-823-2454 uucp:ames!ptsfa!pbhyf!che
dak@uoregon.UUCP (David Alan Keldsen) (03/16/88)
In article <2963@pbhyf.UUCP> che@pbhyf.UUCP (823-2454-Mitch Che) writes: >In article <235400005@prism> john@prism.TMC.COM writes: >>Oh, come on. A copyright is a reliable indicator that a piece of software is >>copyrighted, and that is all you need to know, if you are thinking about >>copying it for public distribution. Otherwise, what does a copyright notice > >What? Copyright and public distribution have nothing to do with each other. >I can choose to distribute material that I have copyrighted in the public >domain. I do not have to give up "copyrights" (so to speak) to place >something in the public domain. If John is implying copyright has something >to do with being purchased in a store or by mail order (and not being >legally "copyable"), then there are a lot of authors of public domain >and shared software who want to talk with John, 'cause they ain't about >to give up their copyrights... >-- >Mitch Che Pacific Bell "Tape librarians will mount anything." >--------------------------------------- Computerworld >disclaimer, disclaimer, too >415-823-2454 uucp:ames!ptsfa!pbhyf!che Well, perhaps those authors *should* talk to John. Public Domain is mutually exclusive with Copyright. Even a simple dictionary definition shows this: "public domain (n).... 2. The status of publications, products, and processes that are not protected under patent or copyright." (American Heritage dict.) Copyrighted public domain software is an oxymoron. In fact, the use of "submitted to the public domain" is enough to eliminate your ability to copyright the software in question, so all you "public domain" programmers out there, take heed. BTW, to pack two notices into one, I'd very much like to have this group moderated again, so that garbage notices like this one don't appear in a .binaries group. :-) Dave (Dak) Keldsen University of Oregon CIS graduate student... These are my opinions only, not anyone else's, and should not be considered legal advice or tax advice or even medical advice. But you knew that, right?
johnm@trsvax.UUCP (03/16/88)
What I thought was amusing was the assumption that a copyright notice would let us know that the program wasn't PD. He should look around at the number of shareware and PD programs that have copyright notices on them, many authors defend the rights to their work but still give the work itself away. He also assumes that just "everybody" has heard of his Mean18 program. Sorry to disappoint you pal, but I had never heard of it and didn't even bother to grab a copy from the net when I thought it was PD. The poster could have very well been ignorant of your programs commercial status. I for one can believe that this was an honest mistake, let's let this subject die and just see to it that it doesn't happen again (like by getting a moderator).
davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr) (03/16/88)
In article <235400005@prism> john@prism.TMC.COM writes: | [...] | Oh, come on. A copyright is a reliable indicator that a piece of software is | copyrighted, and that is all you need to know, if you are thinking about | copying it for public distribution. Otherwise, what does a copyright notice | mean? A copyright may reserve all right (the phrase 'all right reserved' is standard), or allow some limited use. Some qualifiers: "This program is hereby released to the public domain" The only thing you can't do with it is assert a copyright, since the author has done so. "Commercial rights reserved" "This program may not be sold nor included with any program which is sold" Allows non-commercial distribution and use, but not sale for profit. Allows a media charge. There is some similar verbiage in the GNU copyright, but I think they just changed it. "This program may not be sold by any person for any price." This seems to prohibit media charges, too. "This program may be used by any person for any purpose as long as the copyright remains in place and the original author is credited." Credit where is due. "This program may only be distributed in unmodified form" Some variant of this is on the UNaXcess distribution, and several other useful programs. ================ These are the ground rules as explained by a patent lawyer (yes I know it's not the same thing): must have "Copyright 19xx by YOUR NAME" Restrictions are valid if they are "understandable by the average man." Unless you're rich, copyright doesn't mean much outside the US, due to the cost of locating/proving infringement. Please let's not split hairs on these three guidelines, they are not the sum of the copyright law, only guidelines. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
george@rebel.UUCP (George M. Sipe) (03/17/88)
In article <2963@pbhyf.UUCP> che@pbhyf.UUCP (823-2454-Mitch Che) writes: >What? Copyright and public distribution have nothing to do with each other. >I can choose to distribute material that I have copyrighted in the public >domain. I do not have to give up "copyrights" (so to speak) to place >something in the public domain. WRONG - dead WRONG. When something is placed in the public domain, you give up ALL rights to it (well, actually you give everyone equal rights with you - to use, modify, redistribute, claim it as their own, even to add their own copyright to a derived work). You can, if you like, copyright something and allow free use under terms you specify. There is no conflict between copyright, public distribution, and free use. If you distribute something as public domain, later distribute an improved version under copyright, then only your changes are covered. Anyone can still distribute the original form as public domain software or distribute a modified form of the original under THEIR copyright. In the event that you put both "public domain" and "copyright" on the same work, you'd probably have a very difficult time defending your copyright (it's probably invalid). Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, check with one if you need to depend on this information. (Although, I believe you'll find it correct.) -- George M. Sipe, Phone: (404) 662-1533 Tolerant Systems, 6961 Peachtree Industrial, Norcross, GA 30071 UUCP: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,rutgers,seismo}!gatech!rebel!george
markv@uoregon.UUCP (Mark VandeWettering) (03/17/88)
In article <2963@pbhyf.UUCP> che@pbhyf.UUCP (823-2454-Mitch Che) writes: >In article <235400005@prism> john@prism.TMC.COM writes: >>Oh, come on. A copyright is a reliable indicator that a piece of software is >>copyrighted, and that is all you need to know, if you are thinking about >>copying it for public distribution. Otherwise, what does a copyright notice > >What? Copyright and public distribution have nothing to do with each other. Correct! >I can choose to distribute material that I have copyrighted in the public >domain. I do not have to give up "copyrights" (so to speak) to place >something in the public domain. AIIIIGH!!! NO!! NO!! NO!! If you copyright something, it is NOT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN! Public domain means exactly "you have no rights to the software, anyone may use/abuse/sell it for whatever they wish, and you have no rights to limit that". Having a copyright means it isn't in the public domain. You have rights (such as only you can make revisions, distribute, sell said work) which you can relinquish if you desire. For instance, GNU emacs isn't public domain. The GNU foundation chooses to waive their rights and allow people to copy it freely, but you must obey their restrictions to do so or you are in violation of copyright law. In bringing this back to the question of moderation of this news group, a moderator must exercise caution. Many pirate programs have had copyrights deleted. That is illegal, and further distribution of that software is illegal. On the other hand, many copyrighted programs are free to be distributed. How can he know which are okay? By doing research, and talking to the authors of the programs. >If John is implying copyright has something >to do with being purchased in a store or by mail order (and not being >legally "copyable"), then there are a lot of authors of public domain >and shared software who want to talk with John, 'cause they ain't about >to give up their copyrights... Again, copyrighted != public domain. It may equal freely copyable, or it may mean copyable with restrictions. >Mitch Che Pacific Bell "Tape librarians will mount anything." >--------------------------------------- Computerworld >disclaimer, disclaimer, too >415-823-2454 uucp:ames!ptsfa!pbhyf!che mark vandewettering, adding to the high noise in comp.binaries.ibm.pc
john@prism.TMC.COM (03/17/88)
>>Oh, come on. A copyright is a reliable indicator that a piece of software is >>copyrighted, and that is all you need to know, if you are thinking about >>copying it for public distribution. Otherwise, what does a copyright notice >>mean? >...If John is implying copyright has something to do with being >purchased in a store or by mail order (and not being legally "copyable")... I stand be my previous statement. Granted, that some public domain programs have copyright notices. I agree. However, in addition to their copyright messages, such programs explictly SAY that it is ok to make copies, on a such- and-such basis, etc. etc. We know such programs are public domain BECAUSE they say they are public domain, explicitly. Any program that JUST has a copyright message, and says nothing about being ok to distribute on a not-for-profit basis, (or whatever) is NOT public domain, and only the copyright owner has the right to make copies of it. If you are not that copyright owner, it is illegal for you to copy and publicly distribute it. Whether or not you can purchase it in a store, or via mail order has NOTHING to do with it. What counts is the copyright message. Nothing complicated here. Copyrighted is copyrighted, period. This was the case with the MEAN18 program. Consider an analogy. I have a paperback book here. It's a great novel about playing golf. It was written by Jake Doghouse and published by Hardcore, Chase, and Flintstone, copyright 1986. Let's see now. Can I run off a few hundred copies on my xerox machine and give them away at the next PGA tour, as a good-will gesture? How about typing in a couple chapters a week to Usenet, so as to effectively make thousands of copies? No problem, right? WRONG! ---- JOHN DOWD john@mirror.TMC.COM {mit-eddie, ihnp4, harvard!wjh12, cca, cbosgd, seismo}!mirror!john Mirror Systems Cambridge, MA 02140
jcc@ut-emx.UUCP (J. Chris Cooley) (03/17/88)
In article <235400005@prism>, john@prism.TMC.COM writes: > > > >...Also, almost > >every piece of software I've come across in the "Public Domain" has been > >copyrighted. A copyright isn't a reliable indicator that a piece of > >software is going to be sold or found in a store. > > Oh, come on. A copyright is a reliable indicator that a piece of software is > copyrighted, and that is all you need to know, if you are thinking about > copying it for public distribution. Well, not really. I've come across things like: Copyright (C) 1975. Free distribution allowed. Copyright (c) 1977 to the public domain. Copyright (c) 1975. Permission to distribute this program is granted, but no modified form of the code may be distributed. and Copyright (c) 1983. Permission to use and distribute this program granted, but it may not be used in any commercial product without the direct consent of the author. ...and several others similar. (oh, yeah... assume the "by <company/person>" after all years above (& below).) The first, second, and third are both copyrighted and also OK for public distribution. The second is public domain. No questions about that. One more I've seen is "Copyright (c) 1983." No rights are withheld nor are they granted. It is my guess that about 1/2 of these programs are distributable, and the other 1/2 aren't meant to be. Confusing. --chris /---------------------------------v------------------------------\ ( J. Chris Cooley |[mailpaths under construction] ) (( Univ. of Texas Comp. Center | jcc@ut-emx.UUCP )) (( Austin, TX 78712 | jcc@emx.cc.utexas.edu )) ( 512/471-3241 x417 | ) \---------------------------------^------------------------------/ \Disclaimer: UT has nothing to do with this article. Period./ \--------------------------------------------------------/
root@mjbtn.UUCP (Mark J. Bailey) (03/17/88)
In article <235400005@prism>, john@prism.TMC.COM writes: > > >...Also, almost > >every piece of software I've come across in the "Public Domain" has been > >copyrighted. A copyright isn't a reliable indicator that a piece of > >software is going to be sold or found in a store. > > Oh, come on. A copyright is a reliable indicator that a piece of software is > copyrighted, and that is all you need to know, if you are thinking about > copying it for public distribution. Otherwise, what does a copyright notice > mean? It is not necessary to also say: "Hey, not only is this copyrighted, > but like, we really mean it, OK? Like, you should not COPY it without > permission, and like, this is not to be confused with your everyday public > domain program that you can post on public bulletin boards." > The copyright does not necessarily mean that a piece of software is not distributable freely. There are other items that would come under the license and terms agreements that could very well convey to the possesser the right to distribute and copy the software without direct permission. I am not a lawyer, though. The GNU Project *DOES* copyright their software. They make this quite clear, too. But, in the terms of the GNU Emacs General Public License, they give one the right to distribute the software *freely*, provided the person making the distribution also provide *All* the source code with it. While, of course, here in this group we seldom have the source code for all the binaries, the point is that the software is copyrighted, but under its terms, can be distributed as freely as public domain. Other things must be considered. I will also cast my vote NO for moderation of this group. It is really unnecessary. The "neighborhood watch" program here is quite functional. I see no need for moderation. You have done such a thorough job catching, interpretting, and condemming such an act, who needs law enforcement? Let's keep moderation as a last ditch alternative. Self policing, in this case, is probably much more effective. No one will be able to get away with posting a copyrighted program as with a doubt, someone will detect it, blow the whistle, call the owners of the copyright, and flame the poster to death. This is dissuasion enough! I vote *NO*. -- Mark J. Bailey _____________________________________________________ _________________\ _____| > @ Nashville Knoxville _/ / + ____'' > Jackson + <*> MURFREESBORO _/ / "From the Heart of Middle Tennessee!" ___> > + Memphis Chattanooga _< <______________________________________________+_______/ JobSoft D&D Co. UUCP: ...!{ames,ihnp4,codas,cbosgd}!killer!mjbtn!root Murfreesboro, TN FIDO: Mark Bailey at Net/Node 1:116/12 U.S.A.
dwb@Apple.COM (David W. Berry) (03/18/88)
In article <235400006@prism> john@prism.TMC.COM writes: > > >>>Oh, come on. A copyright is a reliable indicator that a piece of software is >>>copyrighted, and that is all you need to know, if you are thinking about >>>copying it for public distribution. Otherwise, what does a copyright notice >>>mean? > >>...If John is implying copyright has something to do with being >>purchased in a store or by mail order (and not being legally "copyable")... > >I stand be my previous statement. Granted, that some public domain programs >have copyright notices. I agree. However, in addition to their copyright Nope. Wrong. Can't be. It's either Copyrighted or Public Domain, it by definition can't be both. "(C) Copyright 1988 David W. Berry. This is in the public domain." is an invalid copyright. This means that this article is public domain and anybody can copy it for any purposes, regardless of the fact that it says copyright on it. The statement: "(C) Copyright 1988, David W. Berry. All Rights Reserved" means that the software is copyrighted. Since I have granted no additional rights here, and presumably havn't granted any copying rights in the license agreement, you can't copy it except for personal usage, ie. backups. >messages, such programs explictly SAY that it is ok to make copies, on a such- >and-such basis, etc. etc. We know such programs are public domain BECAUSE they >say they are public domain, explicitly. Any program that JUST has a copyright It can be Copyrighted with free nonprofit distribution. The statement: The statement: "(C) Copyright 1988 David W. Berry. All Rights Reserved. Permission granted to copy and distribute for nonprofit purposes." Let's you copy the software much as if it were Public Domain, but the work is still Copyrighted and you must abide by the restrictions stated in the copyright. >message, and says nothing about being ok to distribute on a not-for-profit >basis, (or whatever) is NOT public domain, and only the copyright owner has the >right to make copies of it. If you are not that copyright owner, it is illegal >for you to copy and publicly distribute it. Whether or not you can purchase it >in a store, or via mail order has NOTHING to do with it. What counts is the >copyright message. Nothing complicated here. Copyrighted is copyrighted, >period. This was the case with the MEAN18 program. -- David W. Berry dwb@Delphi dwb@apple.com 973-5168@408.MaBell Disclaimer: Apple doesn't even know I have an opinion and certainly wouldn't want if they did.
john@prism.TMC.COM (03/22/88)
I have posted a note in comp.sys.ibm.pc with the title: Mean18/Copyright/PublicDomain/etc. Please post all further comments and discussion there and not here. I think the discussion is worthy, and informative, but clearly this is not the place for it, as many have pointed out. I apologize for contributing to the non-binary noise. Maybe this will help. ---- JOHN DOWD john@mirror.TMC.COM {mit-eddie, ihnp4, harvard!wjh12, cca, cbosgd, seismo}!mirror!john Mirror Systems Cambridge, MA 02140