Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!lll-lcc!lll-tis!ptsfa!hoptoad!gnu From: gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: COPYRIGHT NOTICES Message-ID: <2823@hoptoad.uucp> Date: Tue, 25-Aug-87 07:41:34 EDT Article-I.D.: hoptoad.2823 Posted: Tue Aug 25 07:41:34 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Aug-87 06:19:12 EDT References: <6236@brl-smoke.ARPA> <25095@sun.uucp> <12133@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <1842@tekig4.TEK.COM> Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco Lines: 111 I finished building the next Sun User Group contributed software tape last month, and my perspective on software copyrights comes from both the "collector's" point of view as well as the "author's" and "user's". As a collector, we don't want to get into trouble. Distributing somebody's commercial software by accident could shut us down if they wanted to get really nasty about it. As a result, we send out forms and get people to sign them and send 'em back in to us. The forms basically authorize us to distribute the software and say that the person signing will "take the rap" if it's later found out that, through untrue statements they make on the form, we get sued. [AT&T Unix licensing adds another unrelated wrinkle here -- we get people to guarantee that the code is not derived from licensed software too.] There are a few things that I checked up pretty thoroughly and they are public domain. For these, if I couldn't get the author(s) to sign off on them, I signed the form and am personally responsible (rather than the Sun User Group). If we used had any software from the Free Software Foundation, I would've okayed it, since I know the origin of the software and the terms are clearly written. The rest of it, no matter what its copyright notice said, won't be distributed unless we can contact the author, because we can't afford to make a mistake. The copyright notices on most free software I've seen are pretty bad. Others have given examples, like "public domain, don't sell it". Even the ones that say "copyright by me, don't sell it" have not thought things through. Is the Sun User Group selling your software? We charge $100 for a tape. We make more money than we lose at it (partly because the labor of collecting software is mostly volunteer.) Are we selling it? Is it OK for us to distribute your prized software? WE HAVE NO IDEA! So we end up having to contact you anyway. You might as well have said "copyright by me, all rights reserved". If you haven't thought through what uses you want your software put to, DON'T POST IT. Slapping an untidy copyright on it and posting it will (1) limit people who might have been able to do something with it otherwise; (2) not protect you if you ever DO want to sue somebody, since you probably didn't make a solid copyright; and (3) have no effect on the people who copy no matter what your copyright or instructions say. The only people you'll stop are the honest ones -- and they're the ones you're trying to help! I recommend putting things that you care little about into the public domain, explicitly (say "I, Joe Blow, the author, place this software and documentation into the public domain.") You can do it by leaving out a copyright, but this method has two good effects. It clarifies the status, and it tells us who the author is, so we can contact you to make sure if necessary. Public domain stuff causes the least hassle to future users, since they don't have to check back with you once they're sure it really is PD. Also, when you are tired of hearing about the software, any interested people can just pick it up and start maintaining and distributing it. Other things that fall into this category are stuff that you WANT people to commercialize. I did this with my PD tar, and a few places have picked it up in their software releases. For things where you care what use it is put to, I recommend using a valid copyright ("Copyright 1987 by John Gilmore") in each file of the distribution, and a statement like "Copying and use governed by the GNU Emacs General Public License". Somewhere in the distribution you should include a copy of the license, or a pointer to the Free Software Foundation so people can get a copy. That license was written by a lawyer and it works. I'm using this method with uuslave (now evolving into "gnuucp") because I want to make sure the sources remain available to the public as people evolve it. Like public domain, this method also protects the software from your boredom. I don't recommend writing your own copyright terms. If you care enough to do this, hire a lawyer for an hour or two to write the terms for you. I'm serious. If clearly explaining what you want done with your code (with teeth that you can enforce in court if necessary) isn't worth $200 in legal fees to you, just put your wishes into the README and put the whole thing into the public domain. The only difference between copyright terms and a statement of wishes is that you can sue over the copyright, so hire the lawyer to protect your right to sue. Without her help, you'll probably blow it. A lot of people have a deathly fear that they'll write the next VisiCalc and donate it to the net, and somebody will get *rich* over it and they'll never get a cent. Guess again, guys. Anybody who gets rich from software ends up doing a lot of work -- the work you didn't want to do, since rather than building a software company, you posted the stuff to the net. Hell, building the Sun User Group tape cost many weeks of labor by me and several other people, and that was just locating, collecting, and collating. If we wanted to get rich, we'd better support the software, fix bugs, answer the phone, add the latest features from the competition, port it to the latest machines, etc. If YOU aren't willing to go to all that work, how about letting somebody who WANTS TO do the work make some money from it? Likely, nobody will want to do it anyway, and your restrictions will just hinder people. (One outstanding counterexample is James Gosling's Unix Emacs; he kept his stuff clearly copyright, while handing it out to many people, and eventually licensed it to Unipress, who maintains it and sends him royalties. But I have about 600 megs of stuff that nobody wants to maintain, not even me...) Note that the GNU general public license lets anyone sell the sources of GNU stuff for any price. But if somebody hacks it up, makes it really great, and sells the sources for an outrageous price, you can always buy one copy at the outrageous price and then turn around and sell 10 copies for 1/8th the price, because the GNU license doesn't let them prevent you from passing it on after you buy it from them. I like this effect -- it leaves the honest people free to pass it around and use it, while effectively limiting the exploitation possiblity. Like I said above, it's written by a lawyer and it works. You're the author -- you get to decide. Just t a k e s o m e t i m e to think about what you really want before slapping a random copyright on your work. -- {dasys1,ncoast,well,sun,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@postgres.berkeley.edu My name's in the header where it belongs.