Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!seas.gwu.edu!dutcher From: dutcher@seas.gwu.edu (Sylvia Dutcher) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Rms says: Motif vs open look, a trend? Message-ID: <2724@sparko.gwu.edu> Date: 14 Feb 91 04:27:46 GMT References: <21327@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <4607@lib.tmc.edu> <27A6E9BA.2E94@tct.uucp> <1991Feb5.011604.3849@NCoast.ORG> <8536@mitech.com> <13665@vpk3.UUCP> Reply-To: dutcher@seas.gwu.edu () Organization: The George Washington University, Washington D.C. Lines: 22 In article <13665@vpk3.UUCP> craig@vpk3.ATT.COM (Craig Campbell) writes: >I'm not a lawyer by any stretch of even the most twisted imagination, BUT, I am a lawyer, but advice you get for free is worth what you pay. Nevertheless, let's try to clear up some confusion: Copyright gives the author the right to prevent others from copying. It's as simple as that. A license may accompany a piece of software, but a license is just a contract. Since I can forbid others from copying, I can grant them a license to perform that forbidden activity without a penalty. >Should a company or person use my software for gain, then legally I AM >ENTITLED to my share of that gain, unless I have relinquished my rights. Of course, you mean if they COPY it for gain, not just USE it. >True. A copyright protects your material and IDEAS from being copied. Wrong. The federal copyright statute (17 U.S.C) protects only the expression of the ideas-- not the ideas themselves. This distinction is the basis for lots of confusion in this area (and missed by some courts)> As RMS clearly understands, given what he's written in this area, there is a large grey area about what restrictions one can impose through a copyright license. I find his copyleft scheme to be well thought out although anybody who knows the area would have doubts about whether it could really be enforced legally. But, moral pressure aside, I'm sure somebody will litigate it, and then we'll all know the answer.