Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!usc!pollux.usc.edu!papa From: papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: PD or Shareware Copyrights Message-ID: <18101@usc.edu> Date: 26 Jun 89 07:09:10 GMT References: <18195@louie.udel.EDU> <18280@louie.udel.EDU> <18366@louie.udel.EDU> Sender: news@usc.edu Reply-To: papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) Organization: Felsina Software, Los Angeles, CA Lines: 67 In article shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) writes: >>>In article <18280@louie.udel.EDU> new@udel.EDU (Darren New) writes: >>>>If you say Public Domain then anyone can do anything they like with >>>>it. >>>This means ANYTHING, folks... like adding a COMMENT "Copyright 1989 >>>Sid Sleaze" which they can then legally enforce. > >>Actually, since a copyright has to be applied to "a work of original >>authorship" I don't think that this is correct. > >I'm not sure, but I think it's still possible. Specifically, the >copyright would be solely on the notice of copyright (the comment) as >it is the only change from the PD program... but I believe it covers >the entire derived work anyhow. Adding a Copyright notice to "something" in the public domain doesn't make the work any less PD than it was before. Period. One can only copyright original work which is NOT in the public domain. Extensive changes to a PD work, can be copyrighted. Of course it all depends on the definition of "extensive" and this can only be decided on a case by case basis (somthing that usually happends in court :-) "Compilations" of PD works (like the Fish Disks) CAN be copyrighted, and therefore their distribution restricted. >> it is possible to (say) Amiga-ize something PD like EMACS >>and then copyright the derivative work. > >Bzzt. Wrong answer, thank you for playing anyway. Emacs is NOT PD. >Emacs is a product of the GNU effort by the Free Software Foundation, >and is "copylefted." Bzzt, WRONG answer, you too :-) It all depends on which "original" version of emacs you are talking about: jove-emacs, micro-emacs, Unipress Emacs, TOPS-10 Emacs, GNU Emacs? For example, Andy Finkel of Commodore modified David Conroy's PD Emacs and copyrighted it. It is part of the Extras disk. >Amiga versions of MicroEmacs or MG are technically "derived works" of >GNU Emacs, I can't say for sure, but I would expect that they are. Get your facts before you speak. At last count, no portions of MicroEmacs (the one that runs on ATARI, PC, Amiga and other micros) are derived from Stallman's GNU Emacs and therefore are absolutely not restricted by the FSF redistribution license. >Even if NO code overlaps, I suspect that they are at least reverse- >engineered from GNU Emacs is sufficient to consider them derived >works. Wrong again. Reverse engineering an editor is perfectly legal. Proof are the various versions of PD and commercial Emacs. The same has happened to "vi", too (The Amiga has two: Stevie (PD) and Z (commercial from MANX). Borland even went as far as building a "reconfigurable" editor that can be made to behave like the editor of your choice (Wordstar, WordPerfect, Emacs). >True, but then there's always the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" ^^^^^^^^^ >argument... (which I suppose is even appropriate in context) You seem to be as ignorant as the person you are accusing of being the same thing. Do a little more research next time, and don't pontificate when you have no basis (Suggestion: instead of saying "I can't say for sure, but I would expect ...", shut up or go out and do your research). -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Diga and Caligari!" -- Rick Unland -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=