Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ucbvax!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor From: taylor@hplabsc.UUCP Newsgroups: news.software.b Subject: Re: Public Domain Netnews... Message-ID: <1320@hplabsc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 19-Feb-87 01:29:11 EST Article-I.D.: hplabsc.1320 Posted: Thu Feb 19 01:29:11 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 20-Feb-87 02:56:46 EST References: <1312@hplabsc.UUCP> <4169@sdcrdcf.UUCP> Reply-To: taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) Organization: Hewlett-Packard Labs, Palo Alto, CA Lines: 108 Gee, Larry. I'm sure glad that you have such a mature and intelligent way of dealing with serious and important issues. It certainly makes *me* want to listen to what you have to say... But let's talk further about your posting anyway... >The only way to keep someone else from copyrighting and selling your code, >or a derivative of your code, is to copyright it yourself. Suprise! That isn't the case. Because once something is released in the public domain without a copyright it cannot later have a copyright attached and ex post facto violation of copyright claimed. Furthermore, since the majority of the code the person is claiming as his has been previously released without a copyright, their claim is invalid and not legally binding. The person *can* copyright their modifications to the code. Furthermore, since the whole area of "intellectual copyright" is so fuzzy they could also presumably claim ownership of the changes (ideas), but this still doesn't preclude someone else from, as you say, becoming a hothead and rewriting the new part withOUT the copyright. This in fact is how a number of programs have become available - individuals / companies have taken very buggy and unreliable public domain software, extensively worked on it to make it worth buying, and sold it. The *core* is still public domain, but the program itself is something that you cannot copy freely. But that is ok. In fact, that would be A Good Thing for netnews since, with all deference to Rick and the rest of the people who have worked on it, it is hardly in a state where we can freeze it and not need any further development. We need to see some radical software evolution... >...there is nothing to prevent Rick Adams from adding a few lines >and copyrighting it [a new netnews] again. As I pointed out above, this is patently not the case. Sure Rick could do that (seems unlikely, though), but it wouldn't be a legal and valid copyright. Not under current U.S. and International Copyright laws, at least. >I'm afraid you've fallen victim to an oversimplified view of reality. I'm afraid YOU've fallen victim to an inadequate understanding of the laws surrounding copyright. I refer you to a publication of the U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment entitled "Intellectual Property in an Age of Electronics and Technology". It would indeed give you some food for thought. But this isn't even the crux of my argument - I'm more concerned with the overtones of the copyright of netnews within the USENET community. Up until now all versions of netnews have been without copyright and this has caused a number of mutants to spin off, including the about to be released C News, and the (rumoured) Teenage Mutant Ninja Netnews (!) from out of NJ somewhere.. Once a copyright has been established on the code, then people are legally bound to keep it in. And they will inevitably add their own copyright too - since otherwise it is implied that the original copy- right covers their work too (certainly not a good state of affairs). When a copyrighted system is to be distributed, the distributor is bound *by law* to have written permission by the holder(s) of the copyright. This does *not* mean email and this does *not* mean a few line comment in the code (which is trivial to forge). This means that if, say, USENIX decided to distribute 2.19 (with 30 people having worked on it since the infamous copyright-battle of '87) they would have to track down and obtain the written release of all 30 people. If they missed one, that person could then legally sue the heck out of the organization for distribution of their property. But that isn't the crux either, just an unpleasant sidelight. What concerns me the most is that, damn it, USENET is supposed to be a totally free-for-all anarchistic system. We're already seeing it transition to an oligarchy with the central 'backbone' administration and other changes, but if we're going to suddenly have ownership of the *one piece of software that makes USENET a reality* then we might as well all go join FIDOnet or something. I appreciate that "rn" is copyrighted, Larry. So is Elm. But if Elm were the *only* mail system and everyone-and-their-brother used it, I would *remove* the copyright notice in the interest of it evolving and such. I would like to imagine that you're enough of a pro-USENET person that you would do the same if "rn" was the *only* way to read netnews. Fortunately, perhaps, it isn't. And fortunately, perhaps, there are mail systems other than Elm. But there aren't news transport programs other than 2.11. At least, not until C News comes out. (and I fervently hope that it isn't copy- righted). Does this make sense? Or are you still waiting with the annoying childish comments that you made in your original posting?? If C News *is* copyrighted, I will most certainly find a group of fellow-"hotheads" and we will most certainly spawn a new version of netnews. Probably one that will blow 2.11 out of the water. And again, this is *NOT* an attack on Rick, or a questioning of his integrity. I wish people would clue in on that. I think Rick is a Good Person. But I have a serious problem with his having copyrighted the netnews software, as I've documented here. I welcome any and all replies to this, but please keep it rational and professional. We *are* supposed to be a group of people who have some clue about reality, after all. -- Dave Taylor --