zlsiial@cs.man.ac.uk (05/09/91)
In a recent article on comp.os.minix, Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl) asked authors of contributed software to clarify the copyright status of their work. In this discussion he remarks that authors of MINIX software should either copyright it or put it in the public domain, > Alternatively, you can put the software into the public domain, in which > case you lose all your rights. Intermediate forms such as "This is public > domain except that you can't ..." have no legal validity. The GNU copyleft > would never stand up in court, but FSF is safe because their software is also > copyright, which will stand up in court if need be. With all respect for someone who has worked hard to make the source of his work available, this does not seem to be consistent. The GNU copyleft IS a copyright; in the instructions on how to copyleft your programs, it is clearly stated that you should copyright them explicitly. Aside from this quibble, is Andy saying that the GNU public license does not give people the right to use GNU software, or that the GNU public license in some way invalidates the rights of the authors? Is anyone seriously doubtful about the legal status of copylefted software? A. V. Le Blanc ZLSIIAL@uk.ac.mcc.cms