Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ARDEC.ARPA!drears
From: drears@ARDEC.ARPA ("1LT Dennis G. Rears", FSAC)
Newsgroups: mod.legal
Subject: Re:  BITNET mail follows
Message-ID: <8610141652.aa08904@SEM.BRL.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 14-Oct-86 13:03:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: SEM.8610141652.aa08904
Posted: Tue Oct 14 13:03:11 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Oct-86 00:40:17 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 73
Approved: info-law@brl.arpa

->=Dave Massey

->
->Dennis,
->
->   Consider the alternative to the question you asked
-> what would happen if people were allowed to use PD software
->for public or corporate gain?   Would  it be fair for you to
->sell me  a copy of software  you got free from  PD?   Should
->REARS CO.  be allowed to develop  and sell packages based on
->PD software?  Ostensibly, the reason Joe Programmer made his
->software PD was that he wanted it to be available at no cost
->to anyone  who wanted  it.   Any  attempt to  sell it  would
->defeat Joe's intention, no?

    The law I believe is clear; motivation does not matter, the
actual action is what matters.  This is already done 
in a sense with thousands of products. Government reports are 
repackaged (by private conpanies) and sold to the masses when 
they can call up the local Government Printing Office 
and get them for bargain basement prices.  A lot of tax guides are 
nothing more than rewrites of free IRS publications. Generic drugs 
that are made by companies when the orginal patent expired.  The old 
40's & 50's movies that are being sold on videotape for $9 because 
the movie company allowed the copyright to expired.  

->
->   Moreover, what were the reasons that Joe made his pgm PD?
->Perhaps,   one might  suggest,   to  develop his  image  and
->credibility in the  software mkt.   Therefore if  you remove
->his header  and place your  own name  on the pgm,   you have
->deprived him of  that right.   Note that a  copyright is not
->simply the right  to SELL software.   If it's  yours you can
->sell it, give it away, or whatever.
     He can do the same by keeping a copyright and allowing for free
copying.  I will not have deprived him of that right because he has
released that right to the world.  That is why one must think before
placing something in the PD.


->
->   I guess these things seem pretty obvious to me,  so maybe
->I've missed  your point.   Maybe  you'd care to  pursue this
->question further?
->

     The point I was trying to make is a legal point not a moral or
an ethical point.  First If you want to control your work you must
copyright it. At that point you can control modifications, public
access, corporate or profit use, and the whole spectrum of copyright
rights.
    The question I asked is once is it put in the public domain;
does the creator retain any rights.  I believe the answer to this
is no.  Yet I see in many Programs a statement to the effect:

    	   This software has been placed in the public domain by XXXX.  You
	may copy at will as long as this notice is put in.  It is forbidden
	to use this software for profit.

This statement is a contradiction is terms.  Once it is p.d. I
believe the creator has lost any and all exclusive rights.  I am
justing asking if anyone knows of any legal precedents that
would give the creator any rights.

->
->Dave Massey

  Personnaly I respect all the statements whether I legally have to
or not.  BUt there are a few people out there who won't respect it.



Dennis