Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!tank!gargoyle!oddjob!matt
From: matt@group-w.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Why a conscientious free software developer should time-date copyright
Message-ID: <983@gargoyle.uchicago.edu>
Date: 4 May 90 21:22:24 GMT
References: <973@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> <14832:May218:09:5990@stealth.acf.nyu.edu>
Sender: news@gargoyle.uchicago.edu
Reply-To: matt@group-w.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Audible Boy Birdwatcher Society
Lines: 160
In-reply-to: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu

I do hope this can be the last word on the subject.  (But then, doesn't
everyone?)  If Dan's willing, we'll confine this to alt.flame after this
point.

brnstnd@stealth writes:
) Matt Crawford has seen fit to take a personal vendetta to this group.

Vendetta?  What have I ever done to you, Dan, except to argue with you?
Come to think of it, one of our previous arguments was about your
vocabulary.  You didn't know what "proselytize" meant.  Now you don't
know what "vendetta" means.  (Oh, and didn't you lose an argument with
someone else about your misunderstanding of the legal effects of
compiling with GCC?)

) First, anyone who does not time-date copyright limitations is deluding
) himself and anyone receiving the copyrighted work. 17 USC 203(a) says
) that after a certain period of time an author can regain the exclusivity
) of his copyright by informing recipients that he intends to do so. In
) fact, (a)(5) says that it doesn't matter what the author has done to
) give away his rights; he can still get them back. Either Richard Stallman
) knows this and is tricking people into thinking that Emacs is truly free,
) or his lawyers haven't told him basic copyright law.

You are either confused yourself, or are deliberately obfuscating.
The Free Software Foundation never gave away its copyright on any of its
products, so the question of "regain[ing] the exclusivity" does not
enter.  Are you confusing a license with a copyright?  I know that you
know that there is a difference.


) Finally, once you've legally obtained a copy of software, it's yours.
) Nobody can take away your right to use it, to make backup copies, to
) make changes for your own use, to give it to a friend, or any of the
) other rights normally associated with ownership. Remember that.

I see.  So what you're saying is, I can take my legally-obtained copy of
Macsyma, make a change so that it doesn't check the hostid and
expiration date against the secret password, and then give it to a
friend.  Thanks.  When I need a lawyer, I'll be sure not to call you.


) > By now many of you will have noticed some absurd restrictions placed in
) > the copyright notices on sources submitted by Dan Bernstein to
) > comp.sources.unix.  The conditions include
) > 	o  No rights to the recipient except those explicitly granted.
) 
) That's a shameless lie, Matt.

OK, you tell me what "all rights reserved" means.  You use that phrase
quite frequently in your code.

) As you should know, recipients are given quite a few rights under the
) copyright law.

And those are explicitly granted, are they not?  But not by you.  I
don't spend time reading law, as you seem to do.  (And as you seem to
expect all of us to do.)  So, having done all that research, why don't
you share the knowledge by enumerating some of those rights along with
your own legalese?

) Nowhere do I pretend that I'm *restricting* the recipient. In contrast,
) GPL section 4 is exactly such a pretense.

Funny use of "restrict".  Between "all rights reserved" and "you have
the right to make and distribute exact copies", it sounds pretty
restrictive to me.  No more restrictive than the minimum rights the law
itself grants, but far, far more restrictive than is the norm for
USENET.

GPL section 4 begins:

	  4. You may not copy, sublicense, distribute or transfer GNU Emacs
	except as expressly provided under this License Agreement.

Is this a restriction which you do not make on your own work?  If so,
then we can ignore your terms completely, can't we?

) > 	o  The right to make and distribute exact copies, but not any
) > 	   derivative forms, as long as no fee is charged.
) 
) What's wrong with this? I just want people to check with me before
) distributing modified versions. That way I can find out who's using what
) versions, know where to report bugs in particular derivatives, etc.

If your product is good, so many people will use it that you won't
*want* to try to keep track of them.  If it's good, people will want to
adapt it to oddities of their own system.  You've told them they can't.
(But later you hint that just possibly you might grant them a special
exception.)

) > 	o  Those rights, what few there are, are revocable upon
) > 	   "written, oral, or other" notice, and are "automatically"
) > 	   revoked on a certain date in the future.
) 
) That's the legal protection that I talk about above.

Protection for whom?  For me?  No thank you.  It makes a risk for me, if
I forget to delete your code from my disk.  (Don't worry, I did that
already as soon as I read as far as your copyright and license terms.)

Protection for your code itself?  If the code is any good, it will live
on its own merits without your legalese, and improved versions will
drive out obsolete versions.

Protection for you?  Maybe in your own mind.  You'll have to explain it
to me though.  If the world is forced to delete "buggy" versions after 5
years, will your (imaginary) reputation for writing only bug-free code
thereby be protected?


) Matt, I'm not
) responsible for your failure to read or understand the copyright law;
) but I won't have people who use my programs similarly deluded.

Failure to read.  I imagine that if I read it, I'd understand some of
it.  How many potential users of your code do you expect to have read
copyright law?  All of them?  I mean, from reading your license terms,
it sounds like I don't even have the right to COMPILE the damn thing,
but you assure us in a separate article that some law gives us that
right.

) A few months ago, a poor soul confused by the proliferation of GPL-like
) unenforceable licenses wrote me asking why my ``license'' didn't give
) him permission to modify squeeze for his own use. As I told him, he's
) given that right by the copyright law.

Well then he wasn't really confused was he?  Your license didn't give
him the right, the law did.  The difference he actually saw was that
GPL-like licenses allow him to share his modifications but yours
doesn't.  Would it be getting too close to the original point to claim
that the former is a better way to promote free software?

) It's a shame that inexperienced
) pseudo-lawyers like Matt who don't even bother reading the law have
) created an environment where such confusion can exist.

"Don't even bother..."???  Laws are not written to be read.  A sad fact,
but true.

) As always, I solicit suggestions, questions, criticism, and any other
) comments.

But of course criticism may be construed as vendetta ...

) By the way, Matt, UUNET is not in violation of my ``nutty terms,'' nor
) is anyone else who is distributing exact copies for free.

UUNET forwards usenet for a FEE.  Chinet lets people download your
software for a FEE.  Portal is probably similar, and maybe The Well is
too.
				Matt Crawford

vendetta (ven'det&schwa.). [a. Ital. vendetta:-L. vindicta vengeance.
Cf. VINDICTIVE a. ]
  1 A family blood-feud, usually of a hereditary character, as customary
among the inhabitants of Corsica and parts of Italy.
  2 A similar blood-feud, or prosecution of private revenge, in other
communities.

(Gracious, if he thinks it's a vendetta, no wonder he sounds paranoid!)