oz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) (10/17/89)
In article <NELSON.89Oct16205843@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: > >The problem with public domain code is this: If I want my code to be >and remain freely available, I can't put it in the public domain. If >I do, someone can take my code and mix it with theirs. My code effectively >becomes theirs. This is not acceptable to me. It is to me. In fact, I would like anyone to do *exactly* that. The original PD code is, as always, Public Domain, and cannot be made to be otherwise. It is available to *anybody*, scum and good-folk alike. In fact, the whole misinformation bit about PD stuff is quite tiring. Copyrights do expire, and an enormous body of human creation (literature, music, computer software, art-work, you name it) is effectively PD. If you want an intriguing example of how PDness benefit music, for example, check out Jamaican Reggae industry, and ask about Gregory Isaacs, and the "Rumours" beat. Than think about software again. oz -- There are two kinds of fool. Internet: oz@nexus.yorku.ca One says, "This is old, and therefore good" Uucp: uunet!utai!yunexus!oz And one says "This is new, and therefore Better" Bitnet: oz@[yulibra|yuyetti] John Brunner (The Shockwave Rider) Phonet: +1 416 736-5257x3976
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (10/19/89)
In article <4426@yunexus.UUCP> oz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) writes: In article <NELSON.89Oct16205843@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: > >The problem with public domain code is this: If I want my code to be >and remain freely available, I can't put it in the public domain. If >I do, someone can take my code and mix it with theirs. My code effectively >becomes theirs. This is not acceptable to me. It is to me. Right. What we have here is a difference of opinion about whether this is acceptable or not. In fact, the whole misinformation bit about PD stuff is quite tiring. But it is *not* misinformation. If *I* want all of my code to be distributed with source, and someone uses some code that I have put into the PD and, for whatever reasons of their own, refuses to distribute source, I have no recourse. They are using my code in a way that is anathema to me. I accept that you don't care if some/all of your code is distributed without source. I presume that you accept that I *do* care. -- --russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Live up to the light thou hast, and more will be granted thee. A recession now appears more than 2 years away -- John D. Mathon, 4 Oct 1989.
oz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) (10/20/89)
In article <NELSON.89Oct19072055@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: >Right. What we have here is a difference of opinion about whether this is >acceptable or not. Indeed, a subjective one. The intent to benefit public at-large, however, is our objective goal which we presumably agree on. > > In fact, the whole misinformation bit about PD stuff is quite > tiring. >But it is *not* misinformation. Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you had misinformed, but there has been various straw man arguments against PDness, and there seems to be some misunderstanding as to what PD means. >If *I* want all of my code to be distributed >with source, and someone uses some code that I have put into the PD and, for >whatever reasons of their own, refuses to distribute source, I have no >recourse. They are using my code in a way that is anathema to me. This is true. The missing bit is that noone has the right (nor, possibly the capability, depending on how you distribute) to restrict the original code [the one you provably authored and released into public domain] in any way. So, I do not see what the problem is. The original has been, is, and will be available (whatever available means in the context of software distribution) to the public at-large as always. Whatever benefits such software may have to the public at-large is undiminished. >I accept that you don't care if some/all of your code is distributed without >source. I presume that you accept that I *do* care. I do accept your stance. My point is that the fine distinction you seem to be making with regards to "availability of source" (in the context of public domainness) does not exist. Think of the source (notes) of Beethoven's fifth. oz -- There are two kinds of fool. Internet: oz@nexus.yorku.ca One says, "This is old, and therefore good" Uucp: uunet!utai!yunexus!oz And one says "This is new, and therefore Better" Bitnet: oz@[yulibra|yuyetti] John Brunner (The Shockwave Rider) Phonet: +1 416 736-5257x3976
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (10/23/89)
In <NELSON.89Oct19072055@image.clarkson.edu> Russ Nelson <nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu> writes: Russ> If *I* want all of my code to be distributed with source, and Russ> someone uses some code that I have put into the PD and, for Russ> whatever reasons of their own, refuses to distribute source, I Russ> have no recourse. They are using my code in a way that is Russ> anathema to me. In <4496@yunexus.UUCP> oz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) writes: Oz> This is true. The missing bit is that noone has the right (nor, possibly Oz> the capability, depending on how you distribute) to restrict the original Oz> code [the one you provably authored and released into public domain] in Oz> any way. So, I do not see what the problem is. The problem is this: my work is being used in a manner in which I do not approve. Plain and simple. _That_ is a problem. Say I write a compiler which generates smaller, faster code than most other available compilers, someone else changes one or two things and makes it run on their machines, and then sells it but refuses to give clients source so that they can tweak it on those machines as they desire. This was not something I wanted, yet my work had been a major factor in it. Dave -- (setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))