Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!slvblc!dick From: dick@slvblc.UUCP (Dick Flanagan) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: comp.sys.amiga.questions Summary: They are copyrighted Message-ID: <92@slvblc.UUCP> Date: 4 Jan 90 20:50:56 GMT References: <7049@nigel.udel.EDU> <57b.02t179Uh01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <123.filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us> <25508@cup.portal.com> <25549@cup.portal.com> <22077@usc.edu> <21379@unix.cis.pitt.edu> Reply-To: dick@slvblc.UUCP (Dick Flanagan) Organization: SLV Systems Group, Ben Lomond, CA Lines: 27 In article <21379@unix.cis.pitt.edu> ejkst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Eric J. Kennedy) writes: >Which brings up an interesting point. What is the status of all these >programs (and there are *lots*) that come with a notice something like >this: > FooBar is copyright 1990 John Doe. > FooBar is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN!!!!! >or > FooBar is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN!!! It may not be sold!!!! >What, do we flip a coin and take our pick? Do we assume the copyright >is valid in #1 even though it expressly says 'public domain'? I could In the absence of other documentation, both are copyrighted--neither is in the Public Domain. When you place something in the Public Domain, you abandon a great many rights in that thing. When there is confusion, when there is ambiguity, when there is conflicting information, the courts will hold that your rights were improperly abandoned and, therefore, the abandonment is void. Obviously, placing something in the Public Domain is to abandon all rights you might have in it. What these folks are trying to do is abandon *some* rights, while retaining others. This is a perfectly legal, legitimate thing to do, they just don't know how, so they copy what they have seen others do and end up doing it wrong. -- Dick Flanagan, W6OLD, CFII, CFIG Cherokee 235 N9212W UUCP: ...!uunet!slvblc!dick GEnie: FLANAGAN Internet: slvblc!dick@uunet.UU.NET POB 155, Ben Lomond, CA 95005