Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!amdcad!phil
From: phil@amdcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Copyright status of the netnews software
Message-ID: <14775@amdcad.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 15-Feb-87 13:51:40 EST
Article-I.D.: amdcad.14775
Posted: Sun Feb 15 13:51:40 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Feb-87 22:46:20 EST
References: <962@osiris.UUCP> <1717@hoptoad.uucp> <43093@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> <11631@gatech.EDU> <1808@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Sunnyvale, California
Lines: 25

In article <1808@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
>[This is not to run down the work Rick did in assembling the software.
>The release would not be out without him.  I would rather have public
>domain 2.10.3 and no 2.11 existing than a privately owned 2.11 though.]

As I understand it, 2.10.3 is still public domain.  Copyrighting 2.11
doesn't affect the status of the previous versions of netnews. 

>I would like Rick to abandon his claim and place the software back into
>the public domain.  Is there a good reason for him to continue claiming
>copyright, if he really doesn't plan to charge for (or otherwise control
>the use of) the software?

Stallman, has NOT placed the GNU software in the public domain but
instead claims ownership with various distribution restrictions.
There's not much difference between Stallman and Adam's stated
intentions, that they are only asserting copyright to prevent others
from unfairly exploiting the software. 

-- 
 How can I be Asian when I like milk so much?

 Phil Ngai +1 408 982 7840
 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,hplabs,allegra}!amdcad!phil
 ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com