Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!stealth.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd From: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Egregious restrictions on source code in comp.sources.unix Message-ID: <13299:May1000:41:3590@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> Date: 10 May 90 00:41:35 GMT References: <973@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> <11348@hoptoad.uucp> Reply-To: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) Organization: IR Lines: 124 After my signature is a new 'n' improved copyright. No more legalisms! In article <11348@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > I find the GNU license, or full public domainness, more to my taste than > Dan Bernstein's. Dan seems to want to restrict some of the things I > find most critical to free software's usefulness. [ If people are allowed to distribute modified versions: ] [ 1. they can carry on maintaining it if the author doesn't; ] [ 2. they can post or pass on further development possibilities; ] [ 3. a central clearinghouse is desirable but not required; ] [ 4. someone else can take over being the central clearinghouse ] I agree fully that outside support and changes provide many advantages. But you get all the same results out of just distributing patches. There's no legal or ethical basis for controlling patches. I restrict distribution of modified versions because I want each recipient to know firsthand what patches he's applied, so that when I get a bug report or request for help, I won't go chasing ghosts. (It's not enough to say that I'll only look at what I can duplicate. Some bugs are sporadic, and most have a tendency to appear only on machines the author doesn't use.) When patches are distributed separately, this problem disappears. Certainly I do want to act as that ``central clearinghouse,'' but if someone wants to distribute unofficial patches, he has that right. > Dan claims it's "dangerous" for just anybody to be able to modify the > code and pass it on. The danger I see is in confusion about whose software you're running. If you pass on your modifications as unapplied patches, the danger is gone. > Dan's copyright also restricts unmodified copying to people who don't > charge a fee. For copying; in its new incarnation, my copyright limitation notice does allow charging a fee for distribution. I understand the angst this sort of thing causes you, but I really do want to know who's making money off my programs. (I still find it rather offensive when someone charges $150 for a tape costing about $10 and computer work costing well under $1, without warning the recipients beforehand that the code is ``free.'') If you're on the legal boundary between free distribution and profit, then you're probably on the ethical boundary too, and I want to know about it. Sorry, but for me ``free'' means the recipients don't have to pay. [ uunet charges for news connections ] [ so isn't it violating my ``no charge for copying'' copyright? ] [Begin flame.] I find this oft-repeated claim rather idiotic. My programs' copyrights have been *limited*. They're far less restrictive than the Berne-implied copyrights on practically all other news articles. Obviously if uunet were violating my rights in distributing my c.s.unix submissions, it would be violating the rights of thousands of other posters every day. [End flame.] Once again the law reflects what is intuitively obvious to most people: non-censoring forwarders can ignore copyrights. (This is in copyright law, I don't remember where offhand.) If a television station sends a copyrighted commercial to a hotel, and the hotel forwards the signal on certain channels to everybody's room, is the hotel violating the copyright? Of course not. If Joe Shmoe posts an article and fails to declare it public domain, it's copyrighted by the Berne Convention. If uunet forwards that article (with thousands more like it) to you, is it violating the copyright? Of course not. > On the time limitation/revocation issue, 17 USC 203(a). ---Dan And finally, the new copyright notice: FOO version VER, DATE. Copyright YEAR, Daniel J. Bernstein. All rights reserved. I want this program to be distributed freely in original form. Once you've received a legal copy of this program, you can use it. Forever. Nobody can take that right away from you. You can also make changes and backup copies for your use (or, if you're an organization, for the use of everyone in the organization). You can distribute patches (though not patched versions). You'd have all these rights even if I didn't tell you about them. Unless you're planning to distribute further copies, you can stop reading this notice. [ This notice would be displayed with something like FOO -C. At this point, ] [ unless the reader requested otherwise, it'd skip to the last paragraph, ] [ with a note saying how to see the middle part. ] Copyright law gives an author the exclusive right to copy and distribute his works. So that you don't have to worry about these legalities, I grant you the right to make and distribute exact and complete copies of this program. On the other hand, I don't want this program sold without my permission. Unless I give you permission, you may not charge for copies. You may charge for distribution---but only if you first warn the recipient that the code is free, and tell him where you got it from. I don't want this program distributed without my name on it. I also don't want lots of different versions running around, so unless I give you permission you can't send out a modified version. It's perfectly all right to send other people a description of how to make your changes (i.e., a patch), because then each recipient knows firsthand what patches he's installed, and I won't go chasing ghosts. (An author has no right to control patches in any case.) If you run an archive site: When you receive a patch supposedly from me, do you apply it to the original package and repackage it? I encourage you to change your policy, if for no other reason than to give recipients a fallback in case of buggy patches. If you're really set on this, how about including the patches as separate, unapplied PATCHnn files inside the package? That's fine by me. If you have questions about this program or about this notice, or if you would like additional rights beyond those granted above, or if you would like a formal statement of the rights I'm giving you, or if you have a patch that you don't mind sharing, please contact me at brnstnd@acf10.nyu.edu on the Internet.