Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sobeco!onfcanim!zap!matrox!altitude!clyde.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!LIGHTNING.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU!mouse
From: mouse@LIGHTNING.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re:  X-Windows Advice
Message-ID: <9012310051.AA28309@lightning.McRCIM.McGill.ED2>
Date: 31 Dec 90 00:51:19 GMT
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 31

Paul Hess writes about X advice.  I've replied directly by mail, as he
requested, but one thing he says I think calls for a public reply.

> Are they [some libraries] public domain (like X is)

This seems to be a very common misconception, that "public domain"
means the same thing as "available for free" or "redistributable
without fee" or some such.

THIS IS NOT TRUE.  "Public domain" is a legal term with a specific
meaning, and it does not mean the same thing as "freely
redistributable" or "available at no cost".  X, to pick one example, is
copyrighted by various individuals and institutions; it is not public
domain, even though it is available for free and can be redistributed
without fee.

I am not a copyright lawyer; I will not try to define precisely what
"public domain" really does mean, or how it differs from "copyrighted
but redistributable without fee".  If the difference matters to you
(for example, if you are considering selling a product based on
something you think is "public domain"), consult a lawyer who does know
the difference.  I'm just trying to raise the general consciousness a
little....

(I'm not picking on Paul Hess in particular.  Paul's posting just
happens to be an example of what I see as a dangerous tendency.)

					der Mouse

			old: mcgill-vision!mouse
			new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu