Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb From: rb@cci632.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.emacs Subject: Re: Public Domain vs. Copyrighted Message-ID: <1090@cci632.UUCP> Date: Tue, 7-Apr-87 18:55:17 EST Article-I.D.: cci632.1090 Posted: Tue Apr 7 18:55:17 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Apr-87 00:32:08 EST References: <8704031442.AA25937@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Reply-To: rb@ccird2.UUCP (Rex B) Distribution: world Organization: CCI, Communications Systems Division, Rochester, NY Lines: 58 Summary: Derivative Works. In article <8704031442.AA25937@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> dsill@NSWC-OAS.ARPA writes: >(Root Boy) Jim "Just Say Yes" Cottrell wrote: >>? ... Public domain means that the program can be sold, etc - >>? no one owns it, while the GNU copyright restricts the use. >>So if anyone can do anything with it, one can slap the GNU copyright >>on it. That doesn't mean they *own* it, but the value is that people >>*think* thay do. ... >Not quite, once something has been distributed as public domain, it >can't be copyrighted. >-Dave Sill Not quite. If something is truly public domain (like the works of Shakespear), it is still possible to produce a "derivative work" which can be copyrighted. In theory, simply adding the copyright notice could be considered a "derivative work". If one can obtain the original work which was not copyrighted, they can use that without restriction. If one does not wish to have others producing "derivative works" from their software, they should copyright and specify licence terms. It is not uncommon for publishing companies to add a few footnotes or compile collections, or otherwise "improve" a public domain work. While the base work might be public domain, the final product can be copyrighted. The nice thing about "copyleft" is that it prevents someone from making "propriatery improvements" without the copyright owners permission. I have an old emacs manual which credits Richard Stallman as the original author of emacs as a public domain product, then proceeds to describe their own proprietary version. The main difference appears to be a few key bindings. Since Richard hadn't "copylefted" his original versions of emacs, with the current FSF manifesto, he can't prevent others from taking the public domain versions of his earlier versions of emacs. I don't know if there are any "totally proprietary" versions of emacs out there, but it is not unreasonable to assume that there are versions based on the original which must be purchased without source, and give none of the benifits of the GNU version. The main disadvantage to "copyleft" is that it does prevent others from making new products that might have a wider appeal. If Richard says "^S and ^Q are standard bindings", then you can't change this in the "Base line version", since this would be a "proprietary change". In theory, even setting up a "term/*.elc" file for a proprietary terminal could be considered a violation of the GNU manifesto. Fortunately, the GNU manifesto does allow certain types of changes in a non-proprietary manner. It does not however, allow linking in something like RFS or NFS libraries, since these libraries are proprietary. In general, with "public domain", one may mix "public" and "proprietary" with impunity, while with "copyleft", "copyleft" and "proprietary" must be kept almost entirely mutually exclusive. Rex B.