Xref: utzoo comp.lang.postscript:7089 gnu.misc.discuss:2144 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!uunet!shelby!apple!usc!wuarchive!psuvax1!news From: ehrlich@cs.psu.edu (Dan Ehrlich) Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Ghostscript: The bad news Message-ID: Date: 20 Dec 90 20:46:50 GMT References: <1990Dec16.104300.12930@pegasus.com> Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet) Organization: Computer Science Department, Penn State University Lines: 49 In-Reply-To: richard@pegasus.com's message of 16 Dec 90 10:43:00 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: colossus.cs.psu.edu In article <1990Dec16.104300.12930@pegasus.com> richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) writes: Richard> I understand that anything distributed under a copyright like the GNU Richard> software can potentially be taken away. But when it says `Copyright by Richard> Richard Stallman' I find little reason to worry. When Peter Deutsch Richard> says he's serious about going commercial in the future, then I have to Richard> believe his Ghostscript is a waste of our time. Richard> ... Richard> And why is that? People have apparently been sending Peter fixes and Richard> sizeable enhancements to help the project along. But Peter is only one Richard> person, and since he wants to maintain his ownership of Ghostscript he Richard> can't accept the work of others as freely as freeware projects normally Richard> do. Perhaps his willingness to steal from the net to build his product Richard> has some bounds. I make no claims as to any of the following being correct under the laws and statutes of the United States or any of the indivual states. I am not an attorney, so you should consult one for clarification. This is strictly personal (non legal) opinion and should be treated as such. It is my understanding that a copyright gives "exclusive" rights to the author of a copyrigthed work and any works "derived" from the original. This would imply to me that any modifications made to Ghostscript by anyone could be claimed by Peter as his own as he is the copyright owner. It is also not clear to me that one can waive (or recind a waiver of) rights granted by a copyright. I have never been clear on what the implications of "copyleft" and the GNU General Public License are on what can happen to a copyrighted (or is that copylefted? :-) work. Even if I found all of the statutes that govern federal copyright law to determine exactly what rights are granted a copyright holder I am sure the legalease would be overwhelming and I would still need to consult an attorney for a translation into English. Perhaps someone in the know (i.e. an attorney) could pontificate on the implications of copy{right,left} and the GPL? Or are there already such opinions archived somewhere? -- Dan Ehrlich - Sr. Systems Programmer - Penn State Computer Science /Voice: +1 814 863 1142/FAX: +1 814 865 3176