And exactly why the GPL is "compatible" with Public Domain - as listed on the GNU site and listed on an earlier email.
/david. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cameron Schlehuber Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 10:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] Protecting Pedi Project IP [add] and SCO Whether or not "Public Domain" is a "license" (I agree with the statement on the gnu.org page that "Being in the public domain is not a license--rather, it means the material is not copyrighted and no license is needed.") I agree with you Bill that one of the central questions is: "Does ... Public Domain ... cause all derivative works to remain under Public Domain terms?" My earlier remarks, while seemingly trivial, were to underscore that if sufficiently new work is combined with a public domain work, that combination can have a legitimate copyright, though of course the portion that is public domain remains public domain. If someone creates something sufficiently different that it isn't a "derivative work" (whatever that is, I'm sure a court ultimately gets to determine it as "fact" one way or another), then that "new work" can be licensed however the author desires, even if the original idea came from the "public domain". And if it's not "new enough", then it isn't going to hold up under a new license. In other words, if it's derived from public domain and isn't really new (enough), I'm betting it's still public domain. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Walton Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 9:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Protecting Pedi Project IP [add] and SCO Cameron, Cameron Schlehuber wrote: > Bill, I meant no sarcasm in my response. > I really did think you had some great > questions and responses. Then I apologize for misinterpreting what I perceived as a trivialization of the issues I outlined. As a point of clarification, the intented text I included was intended as explanatory, not as answers / responses to the issues. > And in thinking further about my responses > regarding traditional copyrights, they really > didn't get at the very different twist that GPL > introduces if applied to public domain works, > which I think is what you're trying to get at. The key issue is, I believe, whether or not a GPL (or any other license) *can* be applied to a work that the author has already explicitly licensed as Public Domain. It is not at all clear to me that anyone other than the author of a work can set the license terms for reuse of that work unless the author has explicitly assigned that right to them. WorldVistA can, of course, set license terms for any code it adds. But I continue to see comments, like yours above, about applying a GPL (or other OSS) license to the existing VistA base. No offense intended, but until I see an opinion from a lawyer experienced in IP my experience tells me that there is no legal basis for that. > That is, can a copyright cause all derivative > works to essentially remain in the public > domain? And, is the GPL such a copyright? The issue of derivative works is secondary to the issue above, but it's a very close second. What exactly is the definition of "derivative" such that the combined work can be copyrighted as a whole, rather than just the additions? I also think it's important to recognize what I perceive to be a misunderstanding of terms in your question above. As I understand it, Public Domain is as much a license as a GPL, even though it may not be explicitly recognized as such in the context of "presentation / agreement to abide by...". A GPL does not "cause all derivative works to essentially remain in the public domain." The question is, does a GPL cause all derivative works to remain under GPL terms? And by extension, does a Public Domain license cause all derivative works to remain under Public Domain terms? The term copyright should be understood very literally; it is the set of rights an author gives others to copy heir work. The recent developments re: IP in the music world, over sampling for example, tells me that these issues are non-trivial. Best regards, Bill -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nancy E. Anthracite Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 4:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Protecting Pedi Project IP [add] and SCO Knowing Cameron, I would say that although he spoke of it in simple terms, for the likes of me, it is not lightly considered and he probably knows as well as anybody what he is talking about as he, too, has been in the "business" a while himself, albeit while employed by the US government, but he is very much a Hardhat and in favor of anything being open that can be. It may be that getting a definitive answer for this will be impossible if the GPL has never faced a court challenge. However, that may change as I guess good old SCO is planning to do just that. http://www.it-director.com/article.php?articleid=11807. On Saturday 13 November 2004 04:34 pm, Bill Walton wrote: > Golly, Cameron. That's just *brilliant*. So whenever someone wants to > know about VistA and IP, we just sing them a chorus or two. That never > would have occurred to me, for sure. ;-) > > I've been in the business world far too long not to know that if were as > simple as you'd apparently like to believe, there'd be no lawyers. > > My question stands. Or perhaps I should break it in to two questions. > > 1) Has WorldVistA (or anyone else) already investigated these issues? > > 2) If so, is there a document somewhere that provides the answers? > > A simple yes / no response, sans sarcasm, to the first question would be > appreciated. > > Thanks, > Bill > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Cameron Schlehuber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 1:47 PM > Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] Protecting Pedi Project IP > > > Great questions and great responses! I'm no lawyer either, but that > doesn't mean that truth can't be easily determined. Let's try for some > plain and simple examples from everyday life. > > The poem "Mary Had a Little Lamb" is in the public domain in the same way > that VistA is in the public domain. Yet, there are numerous books with > that poem that are copyrighted in the traditional manner. It's the entire > work that is copyrighted ... the artwork, introductory remarks, perhaps > there are variations on the "Little Lamb" theme. Are there parts of the > original mixed in with the new parts? Yes. Are there such works with more > than one kind of license? Yes. Look at most song books and you'll see a > mix of copyrights with different songs and hymns holding different kinds of > copyrights (and some with none). Are there more "restrictive" copyrights > as well as less? Yes. Can public domain works be more restrictively > licensed? Yes. Can anyone other than the original author set new license > terms? Yes. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill > Walton > Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 12:04 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Protecting Pedi Project IP > > K.S. Bhaskar wrote: > /snip/ > > > In the case of the pedi project, I recommend > > the GPL. > > As I understand the architecture of VistA, new functionality will tend to > include / result from modifications to existing code rather than simply > additions of new code modules that are completely seperate from the > existing code. To the extent that this is true it seems to me that there > may be some non-trivial questions that need to be addressed. For > example... > > Is is possible for a single piece of source code to have more than one > license? > > If the code is a mix of FOIA software and new > additions, can the additions be licensed at all? > For example, "lines 1,2,3 and 7 are FOIA but > lines 4,5, and 6 are additions subject to the GPL." > I've never heard of a situation like this. > > Is it possible to release FOIA software under a more restrictive license? > > In general, all the OSS licenses I'm aware of > preclude the licensee from releasing derivative > code under a more restrictive license. The > licensee must give recipients at least the same > rights he was given. FOIA software contains > no license restrictions. OSS licenses do. So > it would seem that there may be an issue > attendant with the re-release of FOIA software > under an OSS license. > > Is it even possible to for anyone other than the original author to set the > license terms? > > I'm not aware of a situation where someone > other than the original author(s) has (have) set > the license terms. Is there any legal precedent > for this? > > Assuming that FOIA software *can* be re-released by someone other than the > original author(s) under an OSS license, what steps have to be taken? > > In general, for a license to be valid, its terms > must be presented and accepted. Most software > presents you with a license agreement upon > installation. Are there accepted alternatives? Or > does this capability have to be built into WorldVistA > software? Also, for example, many OSS licenses > require the terms to be included in the source code. > Anybody sized this effort? > > Even if the new code (e.g., pedi) is completely seperate from the existing > code, if the FOIA portion can't be re-released under an OSS license, is > there any precedent in the market for a mixed-license model? > > I'm no lawyer, but I'd want the answers to these and other questions before > I contributed code. If WorldVistA (or anyone else) has already > investigated these issues, is there a document somewhere that provides the > answers? > > Thanks, > Bill > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: InterSystems CACHE > FREE OODBMS DOWNLOAD - A multidimensional database that combines > robust object and relational technologies, making it a perfect match > for Java, C++,COM, XML, ODBC and JDBC. www.intersystems.com/match8 > _______________________________________________ > Hardhats-members mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: InterSystems CACHE > FREE OODBMS DOWNLOAD - A multidimensional database that combines > robust object and relational technologies, making it a perfect match > for Java, C++,COM, XML, ODBC and JDBC. www.intersystems.com/match8 > _______________________________________________ > Hardhats-members mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: InterSystems CACHE > FREE OODBMS DOWNLOAD - A multidimensional database that combines > robust object and relational technologies, making it a perfect match > for Java, C++,COM, XML, ODBC and JDBC. www.intersystems.com/match8 > _______________________________________________ > Hardhats-members mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members -- Nancy Anthracite ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: InterSystems CACHE FREE OODBMS DOWNLOAD - A multidimensional database that combines robust object and relational technologies, making it a perfect match for Java, C++,COM, XML, ODBC and JDBC. www.intersystems.com/match8 _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: InterSystems CACHE FREE OODBMS DOWNLOAD - A multidimensional database that combines robust object and relational technologies, making it a perfect match for Java, C++,COM, XML, ODBC and JDBC. www.intersystems.com/match8 _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: InterSystems CACHE FREE OODBMS DOWNLOAD - A multidimensional database that combines robust object and relational technologies, making it a perfect match for Java, C++,COM, XML, ODBC and JDBC. www.intersystems.com/match8 _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: InterSystems CACHE FREE OODBMS DOWNLOAD - A multidimensional database that combines robust object and relational technologies, making it a perfect match for Java, C++,COM, XML, ODBC and JDBC. www.intersystems.com/match8 _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: InterSystems CACHE FREE OODBMS DOWNLOAD - A multidimensional database that combines robust object and relational technologies, making it a perfect match for Java, C++,COM, XML, ODBC and JDBC. www.intersystems.com/match8 _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
