Xref: utzoo news.admin:4740 sci.electronics:5074 comp.sys.ibm.pc:24426
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cwjcc!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!mtunb!dmt
From: dmt@mtunb.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman)
Newsgroups: news.admin,sci.electronics,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: network public domain?
Message-ID: <1391@mtunb.ATT.COM>
Date: 9 Feb 89 14:34:11 GMT
References: <2712@looking.UUCP> <1449@papaya.bbn.com> <2944@stiatl.UUCP> <24371@amdcad.AMD.COM> <1389@mtunb.ATT.COM> <3028@stiatl.UUCP>
Reply-To: dmt@mtunb.UUCP (Dave Tutelman)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs - Lincroft, NJ
Lines: 61

>In article <1389@mtunb.ATT.COM> dmt@mtunb.UUCP (that's me) writes:
>>Please don't be put off by the rantings of someone who is wrong.
>>(The first time I wrote, "...doesn't know the difference between public
>>domain and freely-distributable copyrighted stuff";  but I have no
>>evidence that John doesn't know the difference.)

In article <3028@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes:
>Hardly "ranting" sir.  There is no such legal definition of the term
>"frely distributable copyrighted stuff"  I have a great deal of 
>very expensive and hard won experience on this subject.  Rather
>than waste net.bandwidth, I'll vector interested parties to 
>net.admin for support of  this statement.

Let me encourage anyone who's following this discussion to read John's
thoughtful note in news.admin (NOT net.admin), message <3025@stiatl.UUCP>.
In it, he points out a number of practical difficulties of depending
on the copyright laws to protect your rights.
And yes, he's right that there's no legal definition of "freely-
distributable copyrighted stuff".

So why don't I feel chastised?  Because there IS a legal definition
of "public domain", and I responded to John's use of that term to
characterize everything on the net.  After reading his posting, I'd
like to point out that there exists:
   1-	Public domain software, which belongs to nobody (not even its
	author has any special rights).
   2-	Commercial software, whose owners intend to do what is necessary
	to make a buck selling it.
   3-	Copyrighted software, whose owners don't charge for it but
	want to retain "control" of some sort.  (E.g.- make sure my
	name stays attached, or make sure nobody calls me with bug
	reports of bugs introduced by someone else.)  This is what I
	meant by "freely-distributable copyrighted stuff"; it's not a
	legal definition, but I don't see why I need one now.

Most of John's comments address type 2.  I agree with them (including the
implication that shareware authors are unduly optimistic about their
rights).  (John, I hope that paraphrase doesn't start a flame war.)  But
that wasn't what I had in mind; John's comments equated type 1 and type 3.
Legally, they are quite distinct.  Practically, (as John points out)
they are not as distinct in the face of unprincipled others; only the
lawyers win.

To address this, I need again to fall back on the analogy of the
public library.  Books in the library, by and large, bear copyrights.
However, it's easy for an unprincipled cardholder to abuse the
copyrights for private use (i.e.-treat the books as if they were
public domain).  The law is clear, but only the lawyer will win in
any attempt to enforce it.  In the face of this, public libraries
DO IN FACT WORK; there are abuses, but they aren't sufficiently
prevalent to destroy the system.

I continue to feel the analogy between the net and the public library
is a good one.

+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|    Dave Tutelman						|
|    Physical - AT&T Bell Labs  -  Lincroft, NJ			|
|    Logical -  ...att!mtunb!dmt				|
|    Audible -  (201) 576 2442					|
+---------------------------------------------------------------+