I just wanted to clarify a point that I think was misunderstood.
>On Fri, 6 Aug 1999 DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> At 5:16 AM -0700 on 8/5/99, Michael Fair wrote:
>>
>> All he said is that your appending to the GNU GPL would leave a gaping
>> loophole and that, if you wish to do that, just distribute it as public
>> domain because that is the end result of the modification.
>
>Exactly.
I disagree.
The difference between a modified GPL and Public Domain
would be that "UltraCard" could not distribute the source code,
stack files, or scripts to its product as long as it used the source
code, stack files, or scripts from OpenCard. They would be
restricted to just releasing one binary executable with as many
stacks as they could stuff in it and any stacks they personally
developed. The individual source code files for the OpenCard product
and the binary OpenCard.exe remain under the full GPL offering all
the protections thereof.
I was unsuccessful at proving that standalone executables produced
from the OpenCard application are not derived works. The solution
to that was to explicitly declare standalone executables "not derived
works" thereby granting companies and individuals the right to keep
all stack files and scripts copyrighted to themselves and distribute a
binary executable to their customers without fear of losing their
intellectual property.
This is distinct from the Public Domain where the source code
to the OpenCard executable would indeed be Public Domain
and have no gaurantees as to its modification or distribution.
-- Michael --
------------------------------------------------------------
CNM Network Internet Services
Connect... Get More... Pay less...
Telephony - Dial-Up - DSL - Web Hosting - Co-Location
http://www.cnmnetwork.com - 1-800-953-5556
------------------------------------------------------------
