Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias (Summary)
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 09:50:27AM +1000, Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote: I guess we can summarize now? :-) 1) If you are the author of software, it's a bad idea to simply release code into the Public Domain, mainly because you can't protect your self from litigation by placing disclaimers in your code. I don't remember that coming up. Licensing doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a copyright. I can tag whatever licensing restrictions I want on _my distribution_ of a public domain work (whether I am the original author or not). As an analogy, take the example of BSD-licensed code where someone else owns the copyright (like anything in FreeBSD). Provided I follow the limited restrictions of the BSD-license, I can pile additional licensing terms on top of that. I am not the copyright holder, but I can modify the licensing on _my distribution_ of the code (the terms under which I give it to someone else). It is the same situation with public domain code. I don't own the copyright (because no one does), but I can still license my distribution of the code how ever I want (e.g. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES blah, blah, blah...). Very sorry I sent this thread to a list rather than just go to the committer who made the license change. -- Crist J. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias (Summary)
+---[ Crist J. Clark ]-- | | As an analogy, take the example of BSD-licensed code where someone | else owns the copyright (like anything in FreeBSD). Provided I follow | the limited restrictions of the BSD-license, I can pile additional | licensing terms on top of that. I am not the copyright holder, but I | can modify the licensing on _my distribution_ of the code (the terms | under which I give it to someone else). You cannot, unless the license explicitly allows you to. Distribution falls under copyright law, and only the copyright holder can alter the terms under which something is distributed, duplicated, or modified (and more). A license doesn't void all of the rights copyright and only leave the terms in the license. cf: the bruhaha over ipfilter, where the clause was explicitly stated, rather than implied, but, the license didn't change. None of the BSDL explicitly grant the right to alter the terms of distribution so it is implicitly forbidden. So e.g. you cannot GPL BSDL code, which could be a scenario you are describing. While this sentence; Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: seems to be a bit open, what it doesn't say is and any other conditions that are added and none of the 4 conditions state that you may add further restrictions or e.g. put the file into the public domain. Of course if you have a larger work, your larger work is under your license, as a whole. The individual component parts are still covered by their own licenses. This is the case with some of the things released by Apple e.g. -- Totally Holistic Enterprises Internet| | Andrew Milton The Internet (Aust) Pty Ltd | | ACN: 082 081 472 ABN: 83 082 081 472 | M:+61 416 022 411 | Carpe Daemon PO Box 837 Indooroopilly QLD 4068|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 09:23:58 +1000, Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote: Once it's in the Public Domain you have abandoned your claim to copyright. That is the point of the Public Domain. If you still wish to retain the copyright and the associated rights you cannot release it into the Public Domain. No. Copyright consist in two parts. First one is who is the author. Second one is what is usage/modification/publishing/etc. permissions. If you create some work, you are an author and no act including your owns can deattach author rights from you. And if you put it in Public Domain you, as author, grant anybody do anything with it. The Public Domain is not a license, it is an abandonment of copyright. No, author part of copyright can't be deattached, unless fraud happens. -- Andrey A. Chernov http://ache.pp.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
Andrew Kenneth Milton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Once it's in the Public Domain you have abandoned your claim to copyright. Actually, that is not possible, at least in some countries (including Germany, for example). If you're the author of some piece of software, you're the holder of the Urheberrecht (the rights that you have, being the author). You cannot get rid of your Copyright even if you wanted to. There is no notion of public domain in the law. Declaring the software to be public domain merely means that you attach a license to the effect that everyone can do anything with it without asking you, _but_ you are still the original author, with all associated rights that you have as such. Actually you don't even have to include a phrase like Copyright (C) 2001 by John Doe, because it's implied. Regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH Co KG, Oettingenstr. 2, 80538 München Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. All that we see or seem is just a dream within a dream (E. A. Poe) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 20:04:46 +0400, Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I mean common part of international copyright law. There is no such thing as ``international copyright law''. There is only national copyright law. Parties to the various international copyright conventions agree to harmonize their national law to meet a particular standard of protection, but I'm not aware of any case where such a convention was enacted directly into law. (In the case of the US, the Berne Convention was implemented as amendments to title 17 of the United States Code. US law provides for only a limited right of attribution, which does not apply to ``literary works''.) -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 10:35:11 +0400, Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: No, author part of copyright can't be deattached, unless fraud happens. Only if you live in a country whose legal system recognizes ``moral rights''. -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 11:48:52 -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote: On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 10:35:11 +0400, Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: No, author part of copyright can't be deattached, unless fraud happens. Only if you live in a country whose legal system recognizes ``moral rights''. I mean common part of international copyright law. F.e. Shakespeare works are in Public Domain (so Gutenberg project is able to publish them), but you can't claim you are the author of them. -- Andrey A. Chernov http://ache.pp.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
From: Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias Date: Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 12:24:56AM -0600 In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nate Williams writes: : : Once it's in the Public Domain you have abandoned your claim to copyright. : : On that released version, yes. But, not on subsuquent versions. I : still maintain my rights to do with the code as I please. Then you are creating a new work, based on the public domain work that went before it. Yes, and no. Distributing the exact same sources (with an extra copyright part) that says somebody should not copy and distribute it, as if it were in the public domain, a few weeks after is probably fraud. Arguments like but I put extra work in this second distribution, since I made this nifty packaging with bright colours and the CDROM contains those awesome .jpeg images of my new keyboard will probably sound a bit funny. The truth is that this is getting hairy. If you release something in the public domain, and then add value to it by changing a few things here and there, this is clearly a 'derivative' work. You do have the right to put any license you want on the derivative, of course - just like everyone else can put their own license on their own derivative works. So you are essentially very right ;-) -giorgos [ Isn't this thread by now more fit to -chat? ] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
From: Crist J. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias Date: Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 04:29:13PM -0700 On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 04:46:07PM -0600, Nate Williams wrote: However, I can't retroactively take away the rights of anyone who has gotten my 'public domain' software. You can't do anything. You have no more rights to the software than anyone else does (except the ability to say you wrote it). Even that (the ability to say you wrote it) might be difficult under certain circumstances. For instance, assuming that you release something to the public domain, and you suspect that someone's brand new and shining binary release of something that behaves like your own code is based on it, there is no clear way of determining whether the claim 'it was me who originally wrote this' is true or false. The recent thread about networking code in Windows and BSD implementation of the IP family of protocols is a good example of such a case :) Back to the original question, Charles Mott is the original author of said code, and he can release his software under any license he so pleases. So can FreeBSD with or without his consent since it is public domain software. Yep. True. The only problem is that if Charles Mott makes changes at a later date to his codebase, changes cannot be merged to the FreeBSD version without permission from him, even if the patches apply cleanly and break nothing that FreeBSD uses. Any future changes that Charles Mott makes to versions that are not explicitly declared by him to be public domain software, have to be rewritten from scratch by FreeBSD folk. -giorgos To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
:Yes, and no. Distributing the exact same sources (with an extra :copyright part) that says somebody should not copy and distribute it, :as if it were in the public domain, a few weeks after is probably :fraud. Arguments like but I put extra work in this second :distribution, since I made this nifty packaging with bright colours :and the CDROM contains those awesome .jpeg images of my new keyboard :will probably sound a bit funny. : :The truth is that this is getting hairy. If you release something in :the public domain, and then add value to it by changing a few things :here and there, this is clearly a 'derivative' work. You do have the :right to put any license you want on the derivative, of course - just :like everyone else can put their own license on their own derivative :works. : :So you are essentially very right ;-) : :-giorgos If you think it's that simple, read this: http://www.nyls.edu/samuels/copyright/beyond/articles/public.html I'll include some excerpts here. Basically, though, I agree with the author of this paper that if there is *confusion*, such as there being a copyright notice AND a notice of the work being in the public domain, and the PD notice does not specifically reference the copyright, then the law will be in favor of the work still being copyrighten. -Matt BEGIN However, such an analogy overlooks the special place that copyright law has held among all forms of property law. Clearly, the American trend in the recent statutes has been ever greater protection of authors against forfeiture of copyright, and almost a paternalistic attitude to protect authors against even voluntary acts that might transfer the copyright to another. [FN105] Such unique sensitivity to the rights of authors, and the protection against transfers, even fairly compensated, should caution against too liberal an interpretation of abandonment. Under section 204, a transfer of ownership of copyright is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance . . . is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed. If this statute of frauds prevents a verbal assignment of a copyright, even for consideration, [FN106] then the much more severe relinquishment of copyright to the public at large--probably without consideration--should require no less than such a writing. [FN107] END To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias (Summary)
I guess we can summarize now? :-) 1) If you are the author of software, it's a bad idea to simply release code into the Public Domain, mainly because you can't protect your self from litigation by placing disclaimers in your code. 2) Public Domain means you relinquish your copyright control over your work (but, you can still claim to be the author). Regaining control could be difficult, you can't simply take something and license it if it's not different enough. E.g. adding comments or a license isn't changing the work enough to give you or anyone else copyright control. The amount of difference required could come down to local law interpretations. 3) Actually abandoning copyright can be difficult. Some countries don't allow or recognise Public Domain. 4) Some countries require registration for copyright to be granted, others don't, some do both. 5) Some people incorrectly think that Public Domain is synonymous with OpenSource or Shareware. 6) Source Licenses are a way to remove or loosen restrictions already implicitly granted because of copyright laws. 7) Some countries don't have copyright laws so 1-6 are moot points in those countries anyway. 8) Noone contributing to this thread is a copyright lawyer. -- Totally Holistic Enterprises Internet| | Andrew Milton The Internet (Aust) Pty Ltd | | ACN: 082 081 472 ABN: 83 082 081 472 | M:+61 416 022 411 | Carpe Daemon PO Box 837 Indooroopilly QLD 4068|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Crist J. Clark wrote: It is now written policy, and I believe it was the understood, unwritten policy in the past, that any patches and additions to a file in FreeBSD are governed by the existing licensing of the file unless otherwise stated. This would indicate to me that this file is arguably still public domain. The problem with source in the public domain versus a BSD license is that public domain source code does not explicitly release the project and author from liability. I'm sure that's why a BSD license was slapped over this code. -- Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law against it by that time. -- /usr/games/fortune, 07/30/2001 Brandon D. Valentine bandix at looksharp.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
Well since copyright was abandoned (being placed into the public domain is abandonment of copyright), the changed file can be copyrighted by whomever makes changes. The new file is then covered by the license from that point forward. Copyright is certainly not abaondoned when you place something in the public domain. Your rights vary depending upon the license you choose, but you certainly do NOT lose your copyright. If you are the author of a piece of software and you release the code to public domain, you still have the right to sell the same code under a different license as well. So, if Microsoft decides they want your software without the existing license (public domain) you can relicense it to them for a fee under whatever terms you want, and they must deal with you on it because of the copyright that you hold. Tom Veldhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 08:14:59AM -0500, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: Well since copyright was abandoned (being placed into the public domain is abandonment of copyright), the changed file can be copyrighted by whomever makes changes. The new file is then covered by the license from that point forward. Copyright is certainly not abaondoned when you place something in the public domain. Your rights vary depending upon the license you choose, You can't chose a license for something put in the public domain. Putting something in the public domain implies that anyone can do whatever they want with it. You can't put it in the public domain _and_ place restrictions on its use. but you certainly do NOT lose your copyright. You've just given everyone permission to do whatever they want with the material. You do lose your copyright in the sense that you no longer have any legal recourse to prevent people from doing whatever they want with the work. If you are the author of a piece of software and you release the code to public domain, you still have the right to sell the same code under a different license as well. But anyone else can sell the code under any license they want too. So, if Microsoft decides they want your software without the existing license (public domain) you can relicense it to them for a fee under whatever terms you want, and they must deal with you on it because of the copyright that you hold. No, they don't have to deal with you. MS can license code in the public domain however they like. They need not consult you at all. -- Crist J. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
From: Crist J. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias Date: Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 11:40:20AM -0700 On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 08:14:59AM -0500, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: So, if Microsoft decides they want your software without the existing license (public domain) you can relicense it to them for a fee under whatever terms you want, and they must deal with you on it because of the copyright that you hold. No, they don't have to deal with you. MS can license code in the public domain however they like. They need not consult you at all. But can someone that did not know about the `public domain' state of the program accuse you, tha author, later on that you 'cheated' on him, if you do ask for money when they come to you and ask that they `buy' the source? I am not a lawyer, and I am probably mistaken here, but if someone wants to pay me for a program, even if the program has been released by me to the public domain, I think I will not refuse their money. Of course, being the stupid^W ethical guy I am, I will note that the program is public domain, and if they still want to buy it, then I won't refuse selling it. -giorgos To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 11:18:41PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: From: Crist J. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias Date: Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 11:40:20AM -0700 On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 08:14:59AM -0500, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: So, if Microsoft decides they want your software without the existing license (public domain) you can relicense it to them for a fee under whatever terms you want, and they must deal with you on it because of the copyright that you hold. No, they don't have to deal with you. MS can license code in the public domain however they like. They need not consult you at all. But can someone that did not know about the `public domain' state of the program accuse you, tha author, later on that you 'cheated' on him, if you do ask for money when they come to you and ask that they `buy' the source? If you ever claimed to hold the copyright to software that has been released into the public domain, you would be commiting fraud. You would be vulnerable to whatever criminal or civil reprocusions that result. That does not mean you can't sell something you do not own the copyright too. If I have the only existing copy of some forgotten work by Shakespeare, I could sell it however I want under any terms I chose (licensing), but I cannot claim the copyright and be protected by copyright law above and beyond what I put in my license. If someone else finds a copy of it, I'm screwed. I am not a lawyer, and I am probably mistaken here, but if someone wants to pay me for a program, even if the program has been released by me to the public domain, I think I will not refuse their money. Of course, being the stupid^W ethical guy I am, I will note that the program is public domain, and if they still want to buy it, then I won't refuse selling it. Feel free. I think people are confusing the concept of license and copyright. They are two different things. FreeBSD can distribute public domain code under any license it wants (provided the licensing does not assume FreeBSD or someone else holds copyright to the code). It cannot claim the copyright of public domain code. Public domain is not a type of license. When a copyright owner puts something in the public domain, they are giving up the copyright since they have no recourse to stop anyone from doing _anything_ with the material. But again, IANAL. There are international copyright treaties, but laws still do vary from nation to nation. YMMV. -- Crist J. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
If you ever claimed to hold the copyright to software that has been released into the public domain, you would be commiting fraud. Not if I'm the author of the software. I can release my software under as many licenses as I'd like, including putting it into the public domain. However, I can't retroactively take away the rights of anyone who has gotten my 'public domain' software. That is all. I can release the exact same code under a zillion different licenses, but once it's released, the people who have gotten it can do whatever the license they received it under with the software, and if that means 'public domain', that means they can do just about anything with it. However, *I* (as the original author) can release the software to someone else, and if they aren't aware of the other (potentially more liberally licensed) versions, they can be perfectly happy with the software I've given them. As the original author, you never lose your rights to the software, unless you assign your rights away to another entity, who knows has the same rights as you normally have. That means they can release it under multiple licenses, This is why folks can release software under both the GPL and BSD licenses, and folks who work for the government must release it as PD, and afterward someone takes that software and modifies it again, and the modified version is licensed another way. If I have the only existing copy of some forgotten work by Shakespeare, I could sell it however I want under any terms I chose (licensing), but I cannot claim the copyright and be protected by copyright law above and beyond what I put in my license. If someone else finds a copy of it, I'm screwed. Again, you aren't the author, or you have not been assigned the rights by the original author (or whomever owned the copyright at the time). However, most authors still have their original rights to do whatever they please with their software, regardless of how they've released their software in the past. Back to the original question, Charles Mott is the original author of said code, and he can release his software under any license he so pleases. If someone has a copy of his software released under the PD license, they are free to do with it as they please. However, he can *also* release a version under the BSD license (which he has), and that version is now being distributed by FreeBSD. This is all completely free and legal, because Charles is within his legal rights to do so. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
+---[ Nate Williams ]-- | If you ever claimed to hold the copyright to software that has been | released into the public domain, you would be commiting fraud. | | Not if I'm the author of the software. | | I can release my software under as many licenses as I'd like, including | putting it into the public domain. Once it's in the Public Domain you have abandoned your claim to copyright. That is the point of the Public Domain. If you still wish to retain the copyright and the associated rights you cannot release it into the Public Domain. | As the original author, you never lose your rights to the software, | unless you assign your rights away to another entity, who knows has the Or you abandon those rights by releasing it into the Public Domain. | Back to the original question, Charles Mott is the original author of | said code, and he can release his software under any license he so | pleases. If someone has a copy of his software released under the PD | license, they are free to do with it as they please. However, he can | *also* release a version under the BSD license (which he has), and that | version is now being distributed by FreeBSD. This is all completely | free and legal, because Charles is within his legal rights to do so. The Public Domain is not a license, it is an abandonment of copyright. If you find a piece of code, without a license attached, then copyright law prevents you from copying, modifying or redistributing that code (or book, or music) without written permission. A license removes restrictions that are granted by copyright law, typically Open Source licenses loosen the distribution, and modification restrictions, and disclaim the author(s) from liability. Placing something into the public domain is abandoning your claim to copyright on that item, and there-after you have the same rights as everyone else, or more to the point, everyone else has the same rights as you do to that piece. People don't understand the implications of releasing things into the Public Domain, or understand what the Public Domain is. Licensed code is not in the Public Domain. Public Domain is not a description of Free/Open items. The GPL was born because Stallman got burnt by releasing a version of emacs (I think) into the Public Domain. A company started selling it, and RMS had no claim to any of the monies, nor could he stop them from selling a binary only version of it (or selling it at all), nor could he force them to acknowledge it was written by him. This may be apocryphal, but, it does spell out the consequences of releasing software into the Public Domain. Open Source Parable perhaps... -- Totally Holistic Enterprises Internet| | Andrew Milton The Internet (Aust) Pty Ltd | | ACN: 082 081 472 ABN: 83 082 081 472 | M:+61 416 022 411 | Carpe Daemon PO Box 837 Indooroopilly QLD 4068|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 04:46:07PM -0600, Nate Williams wrote: If you ever claimed to hold the copyright to software that has been released into the public domain, you would be commiting fraud. Not if I'm the author of the software. I can release my software under as many licenses as I'd like, including putting it into the public domain. Public domain is not a license agreement. You are retracting your rights as a copyright holder when you put something in the public domain. However, I can't retroactively take away the rights of anyone who has gotten my 'public domain' software. You can't do anything. You have no more rights to the software than anyone else does (except the ability to say you wrote it). That is all. I can release the exact same code under a zillion different licenses, but once it's released, the people who have gotten it can do whatever the license they received it under with the software, and if that means 'public domain', that means they can do just about anything with it. Again, putting something in the public domain is not a license agreement, but the fact they can do anything with it is true. However, *I* (as the original author) can release the software to someone else, and if they aren't aware of the other (potentially more liberally licensed) versions, they can be perfectly happy with the software I've given them. As can anyone else who gets their hands on the software. As the original author, you never lose your rights to the software, unless you assign your rights away to another entity, who knows has the same rights as you normally have. That means they can release it under multiple licenses, Yes, the original author does lose his rights when the copyright expires (which for things now-a-days only happens years after the author dies) at which time the work becomes public domain or when the author retracts his rights by explicitly placing the works in the public domain. This is why folks can release software under both the GPL and BSD licenses, and folks who work for the government must release it as PD, and afterward someone takes that software and modifies it again, and the modified version is licensed another way. Licensing has nothing to do with giving up a copyright. You can release any software you want under any license and you still have your copyright to the work. Again, placing something in the public domain is NOT a type of licensing agreement. You are surrendering your rights as the copyright holder. Oh, and you mention the fine point that nothing produced by the US Gov't is copyrighted. If I have the only existing copy of some forgotten work by Shakespeare, I could sell it however I want under any terms I chose (licensing), but I cannot claim the copyright and be protected by copyright law above and beyond what I put in my license. If someone else finds a copy of it, I'm screwed. Again, you aren't the author, or you have not been assigned the rights by the original author (or whomever owned the copyright at the time). However, most authors still have their original rights to do whatever they please with their software, regardless of how they've released their software in the past. But I am trying to point out that for something in the public domain, everyone has the same rights to use the work. The original author has the same rights to it as anyone else. Back to the original question, Charles Mott is the original author of said code, and he can release his software under any license he so pleases. So can FreeBSD with or without his consent since it is public domain software. If someone has a copy of his software released under the PD license, There is no PD license. they are free to do with it as they please. However, he can *also* release a version under the BSD license (which he has), and that version is now being distributed by FreeBSD. This is all completely free and legal, because Charles is within his legal rights to do so. And so is FreeBSD. Strictly speaking, the license might need to be slightly reworded for public domain software, but there is no reason FreeBSD cannot add the license to any public domain software it has. But IANAL, and this is all pretty pointless since no one is ever going to really care about the legal status of these few files. -- Crist J. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
| If you ever claimed to hold the copyright to software that has been | released into the public domain, you would be commiting fraud. | | Not if I'm the author of the software. | | I can release my software under as many licenses as I'd like, including | putting it into the public domain. Once it's in the Public Domain you have abandoned your claim to copyright. On that released version, yes. But, not on subsuquent versions. I still maintain my rights to do with the code as I please. | As the original author, you never lose your rights to the software, | unless you assign your rights away to another entity, who knows has the Or you abandon those rights by releasing it into the Public Domain. See above. | Back to the original question, Charles Mott is the original author of | said code, and he can release his software under any license he so | pleases. If someone has a copy of his software released under the PD | license, they are free to do with it as they please. However, he can | *also* release a version under the BSD license (which he has), and that | version is now being distributed by FreeBSD. This is all completely | free and legal, because Charles is within his legal rights to do so. The Public Domain is not a license, it is an abandonment of copyright. That's not how I understand it to be, from speaking with lawyers on it. If you find a piece of code, without a license attached, then copyright law prevents you from copying, modifying or redistributing that code (or book, or music) without written permission. I believe this is part of the Berne Convention, no? (And, it's not necessarily agreed upon by *all* countries in the world, hence the reason why certain companies explicity deny you to download software in certain countries. I believe Libya is one...) The GPL was born because Stallman got burnt by releasing a version of emacs (I think) into the Public Domain. I don't believe it was PD code. However, RMS never explicitly listed the rights the users had, and another company took the software, modified it, and started selling it as commercial software. RMS still had the rights on his original software, but he couldn't 'go back' and take away the rights he had granted in his initial release, so he couldn't stop the company from making money on 'his work'. I A company started selling it, and RMS had no claim to any of the monies, nor could he stop them from selling a binary only version of it (or selling it at all), nor could he force them to acknowledge it was written by him. Actually, if I remember correctly, the company did acknowledge that he wrote it, but that didn't help his cause. (I actually got a catalog from the company in question, but I can't remember the name offhand). He was free to re-use the same software, and release it under a different license for use in EMACS. (I believe that EMACS still contains some of the original LISP macros he initially developed, but they are now under the GPL license.) Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
+---[ Nate Williams ]-- | | If you ever claimed to hold the copyright to software that has been | | released into the public domain, you would be commiting fraud. | | | | Not if I'm the author of the software. | | | | I can release my software under as many licenses as I'd like, including | | putting it into the public domain. | | Once it's in the Public Domain you have abandoned your claim to copyright. | | On that released version, yes. But, not on subsuquent versions. Because you have now licensed Public Domain code, which has no restrictions. Not because you are the Author. | I still maintain my rights to do with the code as I please. Everyone has the rights you do. Everyone can take the Public Domain version and modify it and release it under a new License. | | As the original author, you never lose your rights to the software, | | unless you assign your rights away to another entity, who knows has the | | Or you abandon those rights by releasing it into the Public Domain. | | See above. Ditto. | The Public Domain is not a license, it is an abandonment of copyright. | | That's not how I understand it to be, from speaking with lawyers on it. Then kindly point me to the Public Domain License, and I will happily retract my statements. | | If you find a piece of code, without a license attached, then copyright | law prevents you from copying, modifying or redistributing that code | (or book, or music) without written permission. | | I believe this is part of the Berne Convention, no? (And, it's not | necessarily agreed upon by *all* countries in the world, hence the | reason why certain companies explicity deny you to download software in | certain countries. I believe Libya is one...) I think that's a US thing related to sanctions (probably against crypto). Berne Convention covers recognition of copyright between countries, if you're in a country that doesn't recognise your copyright, whether it's explicitly or implicitly granted, your license isn't going to matter, nor is some box telling you you're not allowed to download it. Recognition of copyright is not the same thing. Once you agree something is copyrighted, then copyright laws apply, and those restrict duplication, modification, and distribution (as well as others). If it's in the Public Domain it's not copyrighted. public domain n. The status of publications, products, and processes that are not protected under patent or copyright. I don't see how your lawyer can dispute that. -- Totally Holistic Enterprises Internet| | Andrew Milton The Internet (Aust) Pty Ltd | | ACN: 082 081 472 ABN: 83 082 081 472 | M:+61 416 022 411 | Carpe Daemon PO Box 837 Indooroopilly QLD 4068|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nate Williams writes: : | If you ever claimed to hold the copyright to software that has been : | released into the public domain, you would be commiting fraud. : | : | Not if I'm the author of the software. : | : | I can release my software under as many licenses as I'd like, including : | putting it into the public domain. : : Once it's in the Public Domain you have abandoned your claim to copyright. : : On that released version, yes. But, not on subsuquent versions. I : still maintain my rights to do with the code as I please. Then you are creating a new work, based on the public domain work that went before it. : | As the original author, you never lose your rights to the software, : | unless you assign your rights away to another entity, who knows has the : : Or you abandon those rights by releasing it into the Public Domain. : : See above. But Andrew is right here. You lose your rights to it when you abandoned your copyright to place it in the public domain. Public Domain is a specific, legal term with legal consequences. It means you have no rights whatsoever to the work and others can do whatever they like with the work., : | Back to the original question, Charles Mott is the original author of : | said code, and he can release his software under any license he so : | pleases. If someone has a copy of his software released under the PD : | license, they are free to do with it as they please. However, he can : | *also* release a version under the BSD license (which he has), and that : | version is now being distributed by FreeBSD. This is all completely : | free and legal, because Charles is within his legal rights to do so. : : The Public Domain is not a license, it is an abandonment of copyright. : : That's not how I understand it to be, from speaking with lawyers on it. Your understanding differs greatly from my understanding. And I've spoken to legal departments in many different companies, read many different articles on Copyright vs Public Domain, etc. I've been in charge of placing proper copyright notices in files, drafting such notice, etc. : If you find a piece of code, without a license attached, then copyright : law prevents you from copying, modifying or redistributing that code : (or book, or music) without written permission. : : I believe this is part of the Berne Convention, no? (And, it's not : necessarily agreed upon by *all* countries in the world, hence the : reason why certain companies explicity deny you to download software in : certain countries. I believe Libya is one...) Taiwan didn't agree to the Berne Convention either.. The reason that ocmpanies explicitly deny downloading software to certain countries is that the US has an embargo against those countries and the import of anything without an explicit license from the state department is forbidden. : The GPL was born because Stallman got burnt by releasing a version of : emacs (I think) into the Public Domain. : : I don't believe it was PD code. However, RMS never explicitly listed : the rights the users had, and another company took the software, : modified it, and started selling it as commercial software. RMS still : had the rights on his original software, but he couldn't 'go back' and : take away the rights he had granted in his initial release, so he : couldn't stop the company from making money on 'his work'. RMS's legal claims were murkey at best. : I A company started selling it, : and RMS had no claim to any of the monies, nor could he stop them from : selling a binary only version of it (or selling it at all), nor could he : force them to acknowledge it was written by him. : : Actually, if I remember correctly, the company did acknowledge that he : wrote it, but that didn't help his cause. (I actually got a catalog : from the company in question, but I can't remember the name offhand). : : He was free to re-use the same software, and release it under a : different license for use in EMACS. (I believe that EMACS still : contains some of the original LISP macros he initially developed, but : they are now under the GPL license.) Actually, if you read the history, you'll find that what happened was that Gosling released emacs. Stallman started hacking on it. Stallman got an email from Gosling granting him rights to distribute the derived work. Gosling then sold it to Unipress. Unipress went after Stallman for distributing their copyrighted code. Stallman couldn't find the email from Gosling conferring him these rights (his claim was that it was on a backup tape he couldn't read), so he had to abandon the work he did on Gosling emacs. He rewrote everything in what would become gnu emacs. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Copyright Contradiction in libalias
I was doing some things in libalias when something caught my eye, $ cat alias.c /* -*- mode: c; tab-width: 8; c-basic-indent: 4; -*- */ /*- * Copyright (c) 2001 Charles Mott [EMAIL PROTECTED] * All rights reserved. * [snip usual BSD licence legalese and comments about the code.] This software is placed into the public domain with no restrictions on its distribution. This is contained in several files in there. This is a contradiction. Public domain software can't also have copyright notices and a bunch of license disclaimers. The BSD-style copyright header was added back in June. You can't just take something in the public domain and slap a copyright on it, but IANAL. Still, the comments in the code as written are self-contradictory. It can't have a BSD-license _and_ be public domain. And since again IANAL, I am not saying which needs to stay or which needs to go, but one of those statements does. -- Crist J. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
This is my fault. Charles gave me permission to change these files to a BSD license a while ago. It looks like I got it wrong :-/ I'll fix it now. I was doing some things in libalias when something caught my eye, $ cat alias.c /* -*- mode: c; tab-width: 8; c-basic-indent: 4; -*- */ /*- * Copyright (c) 2001 Charles Mott [EMAIL PROTECTED] * All rights reserved. * [snip usual BSD licence legalese and comments about the code.] This software is placed into the public domain with no restrictions on its distribution. This is contained in several files in there. This is a contradiction. Public domain software can't also have copyright notices and a bunch of license disclaimers. The BSD-style copyright header was added back in June. You can't just take something in the public domain and slap a copyright on it, but IANAL. Still, the comments in the code as written are self-contradictory. It can't have a BSD-license _and_ be public domain. And since again IANAL, I am not saying which needs to stay or which needs to go, but one of those statements does. -- Crist J. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.freebsd-services.com/brian@[uk.]FreeBSD.org Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! brian@[uk.]OpenBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
+---[ Brian Somers ]-- | This is my fault. Charles gave me permission to change these files | to a BSD license a while ago. It looks like I got it wrong :-/ | | I'll fix it now. Well since copyright was abandoned (being placed into the public domain is abandonment of copyright), the changed file can be copyrighted by whomever makes changes. The new file is then covered by the license from that point forward. If Charles was the copyright holder and licensed them to you under a BSD license then the license still holds (but, not if they were already Public Domain, since you don't need permission if they're abandoned, and Charles no longer holds copyright anyway). This is true even if they are subsequently released to the public domain, although Charles would probably have no recourse if you broke your license with him d8) Charles probably didn't want to really put his code into the public domain, and as it seems Charles has licensed the code under a BSDL to us, the license in the file is correct. Check with Charles to see if he really wants to abandon copyright claims to his code, or whether he was really implying some really liberal open source license. -- Totally Holistic Enterprises Internet| | Andrew Milton The Internet (Aust) Pty Ltd | | ACN: 082 081 472 ABN: 83 082 081 472 | M:+61 416 022 411 | Carpe Daemon PO Box 837 Indooroopilly QLD 4068|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
Check with Charles to see if he really wants to abandon copyright claims to his code, or whether he was really implying some really liberal open source license. With the BSD Copyright (only) he keeps the intellectual copyright on the original. That's what I've changed it to (as per his agreement). -- Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.freebsd-services.com/brian@[uk.]FreeBSD.org Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! brian@[uk.]OpenBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
+---[ Brian Somers ]-- | Check with Charles to see if he really wants to abandon copyright claims | to his code, or whether he was really implying some really liberal open source | license. | | With the BSD Copyright (only) he keeps the intellectual copyright on | the original. That's what I've changed it to (as per his agreement). Oh, I thought he put in the comment to the effect it was in the Public Domain, if you did that you're naughty! d8) If he did that, he probably needs to rethink it. -- Totally Holistic Enterprises Internet| | Andrew Milton The Internet (Aust) Pty Ltd | | ACN: 082 081 472 ABN: 83 082 081 472 | M:+61 416 022 411 | Carpe Daemon PO Box 837 Indooroopilly QLD 4068|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
+---[ Brian Somers ]-- | Check with Charles to see if he really wants to abandon copyright claims | to his code, or whether he was really implying some really liberal open source | license. | | With the BSD Copyright (only) he keeps the intellectual copyright on | the original. That's what I've changed it to (as per his agreement). Oh, I thought he put in the comment to the effect it was in the Public Domain, if you did that you're naughty! d8) If he did that, he probably needs to rethink it. He originally wrote it to say it was in the public domain. I asked him if he minded me making it a BSD license and he said ok only I didn't do the whole job :*) -- Totally Holistic Enterprises Internet| | Andrew Milton The Internet (Aust) Pty Ltd | | ACN: 082 081 472 ABN: 83 082 081 472 | M:+61 416 022 411 | Carpe Daemon PO Box 837 Indooroopilly QLD 4068|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| -- Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.freebsd-services.com/brian@[uk.]FreeBSD.org Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! brian@[uk.]OpenBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Copyright Contradiction in libalias
On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 02:10:42AM +0100, Brian Somers wrote: +---[ Brian Somers ]-- | Check with Charles to see if he really wants to abandon copyright claims | to his code, or whether he was really implying some really liberal open source | license. | | With the BSD Copyright (only) he keeps the intellectual copyright on | the original. That's what I've changed it to (as per his agreement). Oh, I thought he put in the comment to the effect it was in the Public Domain, if you did that you're naughty! d8) If he did that, he probably needs to rethink it. He originally wrote it to say it was in the public domain. I asked him if he minded me making it a BSD license and he said ok only I didn't do the whole job :*) If you look at the history of the files, they were imported into FreeBSD with the statement that they are public domain. I don't think there is any way he can take that back and claim copyright over them. Now, as to whether anyone can now claim a copyright over the contents since (not very substantial) changes have been made is something for lawyers to settle. It is now written policy, and I believe it was the understood, unwritten policy in the past, that any patches and additions to a file in FreeBSD are governed by the existing licensing of the file unless otherwise stated. This would indicate to me that this file is arguably still public domain. Again, IANAL. For now, as they stand, the licensing text within them is contradictory and should be fixed. As for whether it's getting fixed the right way is something only a lawyer could answer, and I really doubt anyone is ever going to care enough about these couple of files to pay a lawyer to have a look. -- Crist J. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
