Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!itivax!abaa!eecae!upba!damon
From: damon@upba.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: libg++ and copylefts
Message-ID: <955200002@upba>
Date: 19 Jul 89 18:30:00 GMT
References: <6590203@hplsla.HP.COM>
Lines: 46
Nf-ID: #R:hplsla.HP.COM:6590203:upba:955200002:000:2377
Nf-From: upba.UUCP!damon    Jul 19 13:30:00 1989



> When FSF copyrights a PD piece of code, this in no way prevents you from
> using it *provided you don't get it from FSF*.  So if OOPSLIB, g++, etc,
> were actually PD at some point (and I'm not saying they were) you would be
> free to take a copy *of the original* and do what you please regardless of
> copyleft.

Actually, this is not exactly right.  Anything that is entered into the
public domain is irretrievably in the public domain.  If FSF is distributing
public domain source verbatim, their copyright is invalid and wil not stand
up in court.  I don't think it makes any difference if you got the code from
them or now.  They never had a copyright claim to begin with.  The issue
for copyright on changes become a complex on.  In the case of bug fixes and
minor improvements, what they have is probably a derived work and the public
domain status should stay the same.  They are, however, entitled to a
copyright on any major improvements they have made to the code.  However,
my understanding is that copyright does not apply to whole work, but rather
just to their changes.  In conclusion, you can't pick up a public domain work
and decide that you now hold a copyright on it.

After being involved with copyright law in the recent past a few interesting
questions have come to mind about FSF copyright restrictions:

1.  Have these copyrights been registered with the copyright office?
2.  Given that an "unusual" copyright really isn't valid until it's been
    tested in court, has the FSF ever sued anyone for violation of their
    restrictions?
3.  Is it true that any of their code has been developed with government
    sponsered monies?  You don't need to pay salaries to satisfy this
    requirement, just use a machine at a university purchased with goverenment
    money.


I don't mean to sound like I am unsympathetic to the FSF views.  I support
fully their right to determine the restrictions on their own code, but JUST
their own code.  I don't appreciate them trying to tell me what to do with
my code.  Without having gone back and reread the GNU license, it seems to
me that their restriction on redistribution of source only applies to their
libraries.  If I compile a program with their compiler, link it with their
libraries and sell it, I am only bound to redistribute their library code
in source.


Damon Scaggs
uunet!frith!upba!damon