Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!van-bc!mdivax1!mitchell Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: Re: Selling of free software Message-ID: <1990Sep5.142720.316@mdivax1.uucp> Date: 5 Sep 90 14:27:20 GMT References: <5414@castle.ed.ac.uk> <26259@usc.edu> <26149@nigel.udel.EDU> <6--4A8C@xds13.ferranti.com> <1990Aug8.173146.1206@santra.uucp> Reply-To: mdivax1!bb29c!mitchell (Bill Mitchell) Organization: Mobile Data International Lines: 110 Return-Path: Apparently-To: van-bc!rnews I know this horse has been beaten to death several times. Apologies for taking a couple of whacks at it myself. In article <1990Aug8.173146.1206@santra.uucp> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes: (stuff deleted) >what I _do_ mind if I post / >publish some code to the public domain, then someone else comes and >(perhaps improving the code somewhat, perhaps deleting my name, >perhaps omiting documentation and source, perhaps doing something >else) starts selling the code so that the buyer of that program isn't >allowed to redistribute. My understanding is that once it is in the public domain, it is public. Any member of the public then is free to do anything he/she chooses with it. He/she might improve it, delete your name, omit or add documentation, omit source, sell the code, use your source freely in his/her product, whatever. Once it's public, it's public. If you release a package with source to the public domain, and someone picks it up and starts selling a binary-only version of the same thing under his own name, that's allowed. His binary-only version is now in direct competition with your public domain version, which is available for free wherever it can be found. If he is to be able to sell any binary-only copies, he probably needs to open distribution channels to potential buyers who are either not reached by the public domain version or are not interested in the source. Fine. An argument might even be made that he has performed a service by opening new distribution channels and deserves to be compensated. Such an argument would, however, be immaterial; as would be the opinions of the argurer about what is or is not deserved. >I think Minix is a very good service to the community me too >, but I see some >of the above scene happening with Minix (or perhaps it's my >misunderstanding). It probably is. Code picked up from comp.os.minix has probably found its way into a number of items being marketed for profit. >I think there's a lot of user-contribued stuff >distributed with Minix. The authors have allowed free use of that >stuff, fine. Not just fine, great! wonderful! kudos and many thanks to those authors. >But I suppose all the software in Minix comes with >Prentice-Hall copyright, so you aren't allowed to redistribute that >free stuff, either, if you got it with Minix, right ? Please tell me >I'm wrong. My possibly flawed understanding is that if the code was released into the public domain by the original author, Prentice-Hall has the right to pick it up and re-release it with whatever restrictions they want to place on the copy they release. You are constrained by their restrictions in your use of a copy of their re-release. You are not so constrained if you obtain your copy from some other source. If you obtain a public domain copy, which has not had any restrictions added to it by whoever might have redistributed it, then you are free to do whatever you want to with it. You can redistribute it to the world for free without taking credit and without adding restrictions of your own. You can redistribute it and charge for it. You can take credit for it. You can place your own restrictions on redistribution of copies obtained from your redistribution. You can incorporate it into a commercial product without crediting the original author. If you choose, and you know who he/she is, you can give the original author credit. You can even pick up a public domain distribution, add the GNU copyright, and redistribute a release of it which has its use and redistribution restricted by the GNU copyright. Fine. >That's what I think is a very good aspect of the GNU copyright. It >guarantees all the users / redistributers the right to get >_everything_ of the original work easily and takes away the >possibility of a third party taking this freedom away. If the distribution were public domain, all users/redistributers already have the right to get everything of the original public domain distribution - if they can find a copy. As I understand it, the GNU copyright requires users/redistributers to make the original work available in its entirety and with no additional restrictions if they redistribute it or market anything including it. I'm not suprised that this requirement retards reuse/redistribution. >For these reasons, if I'll make some sizable contributions to Minix >(or any other effort-taking software development for that matter), >I'll probably put them under the GNU copyright. This may mean that >Prentice-Hall won't put them in the official distribution, but the >improvements (if they're not too much dependent on Minix) are >available for use by free software developers easily, ie. someone can >port them to GNU OS or something else to be freely distributable. If >I just give them to the public domain, it easily happens that someone >takes the software and restricts it's redistribution (like happens >currently with X, TeX, Scribe (if I remember right), Ingres, Berkeley >version of Unix etc.) If you release something restricted by the GNU copyright, why not release it into the public domain, unrestricted, also? Who is hurt? The GNU copyrighted version is still out there and available through whatever redistribution channels it finds, as are any copies of the public domain release which might be passed along without having copyright restrictions added to them. 'nuff said. More than enough, in fact.