Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bionet!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!rpi!pawl!shadow From: shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: PD or Shareware Copyrights Message-ID: Date: 26 Jun 89 11:11:07 GMT References: <18195@louie.udel.EDU> <18280@louie.udel.EDU> <18366@louie.udel.EDU> <18101@usc.edu> Sender: usenet@rpi.edu Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY Lines: 108 In-reply-to: papa@pollux.usc.edu's message of 26 Jun 89 07:09:10 GMT In article <18101@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >In article shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) writes: >>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 doesn't make the *original* work any less PD. I already said that. But it does make the modified work "less PD"... Granted, addong ONLY a comment may be carrying it to extremes a bit, but an argument could be made that a simple comment is "code". And I know of no restriction which requires a author to give up rights even to trivial code added to a Public Domain program. Of course the original work is still in the public domain. But the author of the stupid, trivial comment is within his rights (again, to my alleged knowledge) to restrict distribution of that modification. (if someone stripped that comment, it would be back to the PD work instead, with no restrictions) Now, clearly, no one would actually bother to add just a comment, but adding some piece of functionality (large or small) is quite possible. >>> 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. All he said was "something PD like EMACS", not "Micro-Emacs" or any other specific version, so I made not of the fact the GNU Emacs (the original Emacs [or if not, I challenge you to show me the version of Emacs than GNU Emacs was based on] (not I bet you will, too... *sigh*)) is NOT PD. Actually, I guess you could be right; GNU Emacs could have been based on some system's editor, but I've NEVER heard such a thing said. (but then, gcc is definitely modelled (externally) after your "standard" Unix cc...) >>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. You left out the "I don't know if" [Amiga versions...] I didn't claim they shared _code_... (though some could've easily been pulled) >>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). I never studied or researched the legal definition of a "derived work" as pertains to copyright law; I merely applied common sense (which is admittedly uncommon to find in legalese) and noted that it would seem reasonable to consider a reverse-engineered work to be "derived"... >>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). I accused no one of ignorance; I just dropped that cliche to save someone else the effort of posting it. (it seemed an obvious thing for *someone* to say...) If it were important to me, I would have researched it. It is not critical, so I simply used what (perhaps flawed) knowledge I had. The point of the entire matter in the first place was solely to emphasize the fact that an author who places a work in the Public Domain gives up ALL rights to the program, unequivocably. Enough of this chain... don't bother to reply. it's not worth it. [I really shouldn't post when I've been up this long, my brain is fried. *sigh*] Deven -- shadow@[128.113.10.2] Deven T. Corzine (518) 272-5847 shadow@[128.113.10.201] 2346 15th St. Pi-Rho America deven@rpitsmts.bitnet Troy, NY 12180-2306 <> "Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible." - A.K.