Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!van-bc! From: lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: THE MEANING OF 'PUBLIC DOMAIN'...Lets define it!!! Keywords: PD, FREELY DISTRIBUTABLE, LEGAL, COPYRIGHT, Amiga Message-ID: <1789@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> Date: 16 Jul 90 22:37:26 GMT Lines: 95 Return-Path: To: van-bc!rnews In <157@cbmcel.UUCP>, stoller@cbmcel.UUCP (Martin S. Stoller) writes: >I) WHAT? This is a call to the entire AMIGA PROGRAMMING SOCIETY, >FRED FISH, and Rom Kernal Manual Authors. I wish to start a discussion > (==> NOT A WAR <==) >what 'PUBLIC DOMAIN' EXACTLY and LEGALLY means. I don't believe this has >been done before; if it has, we should check the validity of the definition. Exactly and legally I don't know. I do know that under the law, 'Public Domain' means exactly what it says. Something that is public domain may be used in any way, by anyone, at any time. ie. it is in the domain of the public. That means you and I, him and her, including that fellow over there who wants to use it for his own purposes, and the guy beside him who wants to make a million bucks from it. >II) WHO? All AMIGA programmers, especially those who have contributed to >the 'PUBLIC DOMAIN'; FRED FISH, as he is the leading AMIGA PD'ist; The >Author Team of the AMIGA RKM. What has the RKM to do with PD? It is a copyright work. >III) HOW? Either EMAIL me your IDEAS/SUGGESTIONS/DEMANDS/FLAMES/ETC... and >I will EVERYDAY (except weekends/holidays- and the time 'tween 21-29 July) post >a summary (complete, except for double Ideas; you'll still get mentioned, don't >worry), I will not comment unless absolute necessary; OR we can start a group, >say COMP.SYS.AMIGA.PDDTEMP (PD Discussion Temporary); OR (bad idea, as >already too crowed here) use comp.sys.amiga as our work group. Let's not bother, unless it is to serve the purpose of informing those that mistakenly put the words 'Copyright' and 'Public Domain' on the same piece of software, thinking that PD means something other than what it means. >IV) WHY? I have found that the definition of PD be something very fragile. >Some believe it to be another word for 'HACKERS PARADISE', other think 'PIRATES >FORTUNE' and still others don't even know what to think. Since the 'TETR*S' >war, it has become increasingly clear that we of the AMIGA COMMUNITY must >define PD, to protect ourselves and Commercialists (as opposed to PD'ists). >If PD where defined (legally), then one would know what one could allow to >become PD, and what one shouldn't bother programming/creating/etc... It isn't fragile at all. By putting the words 'Public Domain' on a program you wrote, whether it be binaries or source, the author gives ANYONE the right to do ANYTHING they want with it. You (or I, or anyone) can LEGALLY take a program that is PD, and sell it for whatever amount you see fit. If I could convince someone to buy a PD program for $2000, there is no recourse for the author who put it into the public domain in the first place. >V) STARTER: Here are some general ideas, which should sporn everyone to >participate: The 'COPYRIGHT', 'LEGAL' etc.. FILES or HEADERS of Files should >regulate WHAT a user of PD may do with the data. Each PD software MUST have >such a file, with (it is best so) the name of 'COPYRIGHT' or 'LEGAL'. Another >word for Public Domain is (and has been since the CBM PET!) >'FREELY DISTRIBUTABLE'. Should this stay a synonym, or should it become >separate, or a sub-devision of PD as 'SHARE-WARE' and 'FREE-WARE' have become? >A 'WORLD' rate should be settled on for the distribution of PD-DISKS, using >the method Fred Fish uses in pricing. The rate should be in US$ or Swiss >Francs, whichever is more practical. etc... Ideas wellcome!!! 'Freely Distributable' does NOT equal PUBLIC DOMAIN. Period. End of law lesson. An author who owns the copyright on a work may indeed dispose of it in any way he sees fit. This includes the right to dictate the terms and conditions under which you may obtain and use the work. I don't know if the term 'Freely Distributable' has any meaning under the law, but it is generally taken to mean a work on which the copyright holder retains all rights to the work. You cannot legally take a copyright program and decide to sell it without permission from the copyright holder. No such restrictions can apply to a work that is PD. As far as I know, 'Shareware' and 'Freeware' have no LEGAL meanings. They simply serve as an indicator of what sort of program it is. If a program is Shareware, the author had better retain the copyright, and NOT put it into the public domain. Putting a work into the public domain, and attempting to dictate terms and conditions for its further distribution and/or use, is a non-concept. It just doesn't make any sense; it's gibberish. A work is either PD or it is not. If it is, you can do anything you want with it. >Hope this works, your truly, Please define 'work'. If by this you mean you hope to attach your own definition to the words 'Public Domain', you should be prepared to pursue it through the courts, and while you're at it, please try to come up with another term that means the same thing that PD does now. We really do need the term. If you are not willing to pursue it in the courts, I would suggest that we could find better ways of wasting time. -larry -- The raytracer of justice recurses slowly, but it renders exceedingly fine. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+