Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!tjc
From: t...@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Your articles sold for cash.
Message-ID: <5414@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 30 Jul 90 12:34:35 GMT
Sender: t...@castle.ed.ac.uk
Organization: Edinburgh University Colouring Book Software
Lines: 24
Posted: Mon Jul 30 13:34:35 1990
This is part of an ad that appears in Program Now, a UK based
programming magazine:
MINIX
Run a Unix Type System
For only $87.75
A unix type multi-tasking, multi-user system that will run on IBM clones
or Atari ST.
Including printouts and patches from USENET.
The Minix Centre
Forncett-End Nr Norwich Norfolk.
Several things disturb me about this. Firstly does this company
have permission from Prentice Hall for what they are doing?
Secondly they are selling the contents of this newsgroup for profit. The
trouble is I don't see any way to stop them.
Tony
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!pollux.usc.edu!kjh
From: k...@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Your articles sold for cash.
Message-ID: <26259@usc.edu>
Date: 30 Jul 90 22:44:44 GMT
References: <5414@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@usc.edu
Organization: EE-Systems, USC, Los Angeles
Lines: 30
Posted: Mon Jul 30 23:44:44 1990
I don't mind if anybody uses my postings for personal use, and I also
don't mind if they use them in some business, as long as they are not
directly profiting from my work. (That is - if they just use the Minix
operating system to do other work, this is just fine.) I am really
upset that somebody would have the gall to re-sell my postings and
profit from them.
Well, we can (and should) let Prentice Hall know about this. Second, I
will start to put a notice on my postings that they cannot be sold or
re-sold by any party, any time, or any place.
In the United States, a person holds a copyright on any material he
writes, whether or not he registers that material with the copyright
office, and this copyright protects him against others profiting from
his work. I can't believe that the laws in Great Britain are very much
different.
If this company continues, then I suppose that we could restrict
distribution of our articles, so that they only go to North America,
South America, Asia, Africa, and the continent. Perhaps this would piss
off the Brits enough that they would take legal action against this
company in Great Britain.
----------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Copyright Kenneth J. Hendrickson, 1990
No part of this article may be sold, or printed in a publication
which is sold, without the written permission of the author.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Hendrickson N8DGN/6 k...@usc.edu ...!uunet!usc!pollux!kjh
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!husc6!rutgers!uwm.edu!wuarchive!udel!mmdf
From: and...@eleceng.bradford.ac.uk (Andrew G. Minter)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Your articles sold for cash.
Message-ID: <26198@nigel.udel.EDU>
Date: 31 Jul 90 12:16:38 GMT
Sender: m...@ee.udel.EDU
Lines: 47
Posted: Tue Jul 31 13:16:38 1990
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 22:44:44 GMT
> From: "Kenneth J. Hendrickson" <k...@EDU.USC.POLLUX>
>
> Well, we can (and should) let Prentice Hall know about this. Second, I
> will start to put a notice on my postings that they cannot be sold or
> re-sold by any party, any time, or any place.
This sounds like a good idea and I agree with you. However, all sites here
have to pay to receive USENET news, so where exactly do you draw the line.
I think I can see where it is, but I don't know how you would tie it up in
legal terms.
> If this company continues, then I suppose that we could restrict
> distribution of our articles, so that they only go to North America,
> South America, Asia, Africa, and the continent. Perhaps this would piss
> off the Brits enough that they would take legal action against this
> company in Great Britain.
Please, please don't do this:
1. I'm not at all convinced that these people are doing anything strictly
illegal (although I'm disturbed at the prices they seem to be charging
for "free" software, especially GNU stuff).
2. I would not get the postings, which would indeed "piss me off".
3. The Minix Centre could almost certainly get the postings by buying a fast
modem and spending a little money.
One service these people provide is to pass on all the goodies to people,
mostly computer amatuers, without network access. While I'm concerned that
they may be making a little to much money out of this it would be a shame if
the service vanished completely.
As an alternative, how about somebody offering to send out postings
regularly on floppies for a nominal handling charge?
Cheers, Andrew
--
##############################################################################
# Andrew G. Minter, # JANET: and...@brad.eeng #
# Lecturer in Information Systems, # EARN/BITNET: and...@eeng.brad.ac.uk #
# Dept. of Electrical Engineering, # #
# University of Bradford, # Phone: +44.274.733466 ext 347 or 326 #
# Bradford, West Yorkshire, BD7 1DP # Telex: 51309 UNIBFD G #
# United Kingdom # Fax: +44.274.305340 #
##############################################################################
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!ficc!peter
From: pe...@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Your articles sold for cash.
Message-ID: <6--4A8C@xds13.ferranti.com>
Date: 31 Jul 90 22:33:03 GMT
References: <5414@castle.ed.ac.uk> <26259@usc.edu> <26149@nigel.udel.EDU>
Reply-To: pe...@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 15
Posted: Tue Jul 31 23:33:03 1990
I wrote a soft shareware program for the Amiga called "browser". After
a while, I recieved mail from someone in Germany to the effect that someone
was selling a disk that contained several such programs for more than the
$5 that Fred Fish charges for his Amiga PD collection, with the implication
that I should be horrified at his abuse of my work.
I'm afraid that I disappointed this worthy gentleman, because I really
didn't care. So long as the package stayed together so my begging letter
was included, I didn't care if they required a 5 year indenture to get my
code. I'd already by publishing it agreed to let anyone distribute it with
no fee. I still fail to understand how something you've given away for
free suddenly becomes valuable intellectual property when someone else
finds they can sell it.
All this does is give you a bigger audience. What's the big deal?
--
Peter da Silva. `-_-'
+1 713 274 5180. 'U`
<pe...@ficc.ferranti.com>
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!convex!texsun!newstop!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!
usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!mmdf
From: wal...@minixug.hobby.nl (Fred van Kempen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <26397@nigel.udel.EDU>
Date: 2 Aug 90 00:22:45 GMT
Sender: m...@ee.udel.EDU
Lines: 121
Posted: Thu Aug 2 01:22:45 1990
Subject: Re: Your articles sold for cash. [ _long_ : DO read !! ]
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
References: <5414@castle.ed.ac.uk>
CC: a...@cs.vu.nl, j...@phall.mug.hobby.nl
From article <5...@castle.ed.ac.uk>, by t...@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J
Cunningham):
>
> This is part of an ad that appears in Program Now, a UK based
> programming magazine:
>
> MINIX
>
> Run a Unix Type System
> For only $87.75
>
> A unix type multi-tasking, multi-user system that will run on IBM clones
> or Atari ST.
>
> Including printouts and patches from USENET.
>
>
> The Minix Centre
> Forncett-End Nr Norwich Norfolk.
>
All:
The MINIX Centre UK is an organization similar to NLMUG; since they offer
services to MINIX customers in their country. However, since they do not
receive any external support or funding, they are forced to get the money
by selling some related products for a small profit. For that little
amount of extra money, customers receive what they deserve: a decent service
regarding system updates, and a place to go to in case of questions and/or
problems. In my opinion, this is a very fair deal for most people.
Tony:
As the founder of the MINIX User Group Holland (NLMUG), and co-founder
of a number of other MUGs in the world, and as the primary founder of
the MUGNET MINIX Network, which are all recognized non-profit organizations,
I am "shocked" by this message.
> Several things disturb me about this. Firstly does this company
> have permission from Prentice Hall for what they are doing?
1. Yes, ANYONE may sell MINIX for profit AT ANY PRICE.
If you buy a copy of the Acme Word Processor program for $100,-,
you may sell it to anyone for any price. If the buyer pays you
more than what YOU payed for it, then he is real dumb, and you
just made a profit. If the guy pays less, then you'll be losing
money. Since I am the official MINIX distributor for the Netherlands
(personally, not the NLMUG !), I can place ads like the one above as
well.
However, Prentice-Hall sometimes appoints certain companies or orga-
nizations as "official" Prentice-Hall dealers for MINIX related stuff,
since MINIX is hard to obtain in some countries. TMC is one of them
in the UK, and I (personally, not NLMUG) is one of them in the
Netherlands. This, of course, offers some nice quantity discounts.
However, one must also "promise" to promote the MINIX product at best.
> Secondly they are selling the contents of this newsgroup for profit. The
2. My (official !!) Prentice-Hall price book says:
MINIX 1.3 Disks (AT and XT) UKP 98.44 US$ 113.15
MINIX 1.1 ST Disks + Man. UKP 98.44 US$ 113.15
...
Since all dealers get some amount of discount, "The MINIX Centre" can
sell MINIX for any price they want to, as long as it is higher than
what they had to pay for it (I know what their discount rate is, amd
I can only tell you that is a fair one.)
It would be silly to say that they do not make a profit of selling
MINIX packages to people inside the UK, but remember that TMC does
this as a means to keep the organization going. I know the guys
behind TMC (I am sure they will read this, so they probably will
reply to it...), and they already explained to me (and, no doubt,
to many others) that they have to get some money to keep the MINIX
services alive, since they do NOT have members, nor do they get any
funding from universities and the like.
As long as people put no (c)opyright on posted material, this can
be included in any MINIX-package, provided that it is labelled as
such. However, the price may not be raised due to the addition of
the USENET material.
In other words: they sell MINIX for profit (to keep the organization
going), and add interesting USENET stuff to the
packages being sold, for the customer's convienience.
They do not (yet) have access to MUGNET, so they are unable to offer
these articles in any other way, like a BBS system, for example.
> trouble is I don't see any way to stop them.
3. And why should you? Who gives you the authority?
The only people who might stop them are P-H (who do not wish to do
so), and Andy Tananbaum, who _knows_ what they (and, for that matter,
I) do with his "baby".
All I am trying to say here is: please investigate these things very
carefully before accusing people of making profits of another man's
work.
Please feel free to flame me for this bit of critisism.
I just can't stand messages like the one above....
> Tony
Fred van Kempen,
MINIX User Group Holland (NLMUG)
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| MINIX User Group Holland UUCP: wal...@minixug.hobby.nl |
| c/o Fred van Kempen, or: hp4nl!hgatenl!minixug!waltje |
| Hoefbladhof 27 |
| 2215 DV VOORHOUT "Love is - what you want it to be. |
| The Netherlands Alannah Myles" |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!ukc!reading!minster!ken
From: k...@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Your articles sold for cash.
Message-ID: <650145312.12585@minster.york.ac.uk>
Date: 8 Aug 90 19:55:12 GMT
References: <26198@nigel.udel.EDU>
Reply-To: k...@SoftEng.UUCP (ken)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
Lines: 44
Posted: Wed Aug 8 20:55:12 1990
In article <26...@nigel.udel.EDU> and...@eleceng.bradford.ac.uk (Andrew G.
Minter) writes:
>>
>> Well, we can (and should) let Prentice Hall know about this. Second, I
>> will start to put a notice on my postings that they cannot be sold or
>> re-sold by any party, any time, or any place.
>
>This sounds like a good idea and I agree with you. However, all sites here
>have to pay to receive USENET news, so where exactly do you draw the line.
>I think I can see where it is, but I don't know how you would tie it up in
>legal terms.
>
>> If this company continues, then I suppose that we could restrict
>> distribution of our articles, so that they only go to North America,
>> South America, Asia, Africa, and the continent. Perhaps this would piss
>> off the Brits enough that they would take legal action against this
>> company in Great Britain.
>
>Please, please don't do this:
>
>1. I'm not at all convinced that these people are doing anything strictly
> illegal (although I'm disturbed at the prices they seem to be charging
> for "free" software, especially GNU stuff).
PD libraries are allowed to make a "reasonable charge" for conveying
software, such as cost of postage, disk, cost of running the company, etc.
If they are charging more than this then they are breaking the law. I don't
know whether this is criminal law (the police get involved) or civil law.
Judging by most other PD libraries, the cost of the disks should be no more
than about \(ps 5 / $10 (although it might justifiably be more if the
customer base is much smaller).
I'd rather have this service around than not - there are a lot of minix
users without access to USENET, and who need the information (I used to be
without USENET access, and it really _hurt_ - one of the factors in my
job change!).
Ken
--
Ken Tindell UUCP: ..!mcsun!ukc!minster!ken
Computer Science Dept. Internet: ken%minster.york.ac...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
York University, Tel.: +44-904-433244
YO1 5DD
UK
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!sunic!tut!funic!santra!news
From: j...@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Selling of free software
Message-ID: <1990Aug8.173146.1206@santra.uucp>
Date: 8 Aug 90 17:31:46 GMT
References: <5414@castle.ed.ac.uk> <26259@usc.edu> <26149@nigel.udel.EDU>
<6--4A8C@xds13.ferranti.com>
Sender: n...@santra.uucp (Cnews - USENET news system)
Reply-To: j...@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Lines: 46
Posted: Wed Aug 8 18:31:46 1990
In-Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
In article <6--4...@xds13.ferranti.com>, peter@ficc (Peter da Silva) writes:
>I wrote a soft shareware program for the Amiga called "browser". After
>a while, I recieved mail from someone in Germany to the effect that someone
>was selling a disk that contained several such programs for more than the
>$5 that Fred Fish charges for his Amiga PD collection, with the implication
>that I should be horrified at his abuse of my work.
>
>I'm afraid that I disappointed this worthy gentleman, because I really
>didn't care. So long as the package stayed together so my begging letter
>was included, I didn't care if they required a 5 year indenture to get my
>code.
I don't mind that situation either; what I _do_ mind if I post /
publish some code to the public domain, then someone else comes and
(perhaps improving the code somewhat, perhaps deleting my name,
perhaps omiting documentation and source, perhaps doing something
else) starts selling the code so that the buyer of that program isn't
allowed to redistribute.
I think Minix is a very good service to the community, but I see some
of the above scene happening with Minix (or perhaps it's my
misunderstanding). I think there's a lot of user-contribued stuff
distributed with Minix. The authors have allowed free use of that
stuff, fine. But I suppose all the software in Minix comes with
Prentice-Hall copyright, so you aren't allowed to redistribute that
free stuff, either, if you got it with Minix, right ? Please tell me
I'm wrong.
That's what I think is a very good aspect of the GNU copyright. It
guarantees all the users / redistributers the right to get
_everything_ of the original work easily and takes away the
possibility of a third party taking this freedom away.
For these reasons, if I'll make some sizable contributions to Minix
(or any other effort-taking software development for that matter),
I'll probably put them under the GNU copyright. This may mean that
Prentice-Hall won't put them in the official distribution, but the
improvements (if they're not too much dependent on Minix) are
available for use by free software developers easily, ie. someone can
port them to GNU OS or something else to be freely distributable. If
I just give them to the public domain, it easily happens that someone
takes the software and restricts it's redistribution (like happens
currently with X, TeX, Scribe (if I remember right), Ingres, Berkeley
version of Unix etc.)
//Jyrki
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!hp4nl!phigate!prle!prles2!cst!meulenbr
From: meule...@cst.philips.nl (Frans Meulenbroeks)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Selling of free software
Message-ID: <meulenbr.650184899@cst>
Date: 9 Aug 90 06:54:59 GMT
References: <5414@castle.ed.ac.uk> <26259@usc.edu>
<26149@nigel.udel.EDU> <6--4A8C@xds13.ferranti.com>
<1990Aug8.173146.1206@santra.uucp>
Sender: n...@prles2.prl.philips.nl
Lines: 32
Posted: Thu Aug 9 07:54:59 1990
[lots trimmed]
j...@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>misunderstanding). I think there's a lot of user-contribued stuff
>distributed with Minix. The authors have allowed free use of that
>stuff, fine. But I suppose all the software in Minix comes with
>Prentice-Hall copyright, so you aren't allowed to redistribute that
>free stuff, either, if you got it with Minix, right ? Please tell me
>I'm wrong.
Hmm. I'm not a lawyer, but I think PH only holds copyright to part of
the sources, and a compilation copyright to the rest of the stuff.
If you contribute a program with a copyright notice allowing unlimited
distribution, PH will surely respect it, and people can take it off
the MINIX disks without any problems (my opinion/interpretation).
However, if the wording is very strictly and there is a possible
implication that it also has effect on the other MINIX stuff it is
probably rejected.
The stuff on the MINIX disks is the same stuff that is posted by ast.
Part of the utilities carries copyright notices of other people or
institutions. For instance look at the code or more(1).
I think that you can take the more sources from the MINIX disks, and
do with it whatever you want as long as you comply with the copyright
notice in more.c
Sometimes I speak for me. Sometimes not. I definitely do not speak for
Philips, PH, Free University, ast, anyone else.
--
Frans Meulenbroeks (meule...@cst.philips.nl)
Centre for Software Technology
( or try: ...!mcsun!phigate!prle!cst!meulenbr)
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!hp4nl!star.cs.vu.nl!ast
From: a...@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Selling of free software
Message-ID: <7268@star.cs.vu.nl>
Date: 9 Aug 90 12:10:59 GMT
References: <6--4A8C@xds13.ferranti.com> <1990Aug8.173146.1206@santra.uucp>
<meulenbr.650184899@cst>
Sender: n...@cs.vu.nl
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Lines: 24
Posted: Thu Aug 9 13:10:59 1990
In article <meulenbr.650184899@cst> meule...@cst.philips.nl (Frans
Meulenbroeks) writes:
>Hmm. I'm not a lawyer, but I think PH only holds copyright to part of
>the sources, and a compilation copyright to the rest of the stuff.
>If you contribute a program with a copyright notice allowing unlimited
>distribution, PH will surely respect it, and people can take it off
>the MINIX disks without any problems
This is correct. If you post a program and put in an explicit message that
it is in the public domain, then no one can get it out of the public domain.
Anyone can modify it (even a single character) and then copyright the modified
version and prevent anyone from using THAT version, but the original remains
in the public domain. Once pubic domain, always public domain.
I would suggest that people who post software and intend it to be in the
public domain, put in a notice to that effect. That way people who want to
sell it (e.g. P-H) can do so, but they cannot prevent anyone else from
doing what they want, including giving it away free. The GNU copyleft, which
creates legal obligations on the part of anyone selling it, causes lawyers
to go into infinite loops. Statements that something is simultaneously
copyright and public domain (see du.c) make as much sense as the law passed
by the Indiana State Legislature around 1890 saying that in Indiana pi was
legally exactly 3.0.
Andy Tanenbaum (a...@cs.vu.nl)
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!
news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry
From: he...@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Selling of free software
Message-ID: <1990Aug10.170521.9435@zoo.toronto.edu>
Date: 10 Aug 90 17:05:21 GMT
References: <6--4A8C@xds13.ferranti.com> <1990Aug8.173146.1206@santra.uucp>
<meulenbr.650184899@cst> <7268@star.cs.vu.nl>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 19
Posted: Fri Aug 10 18:05:21 1990
In article <7...@star.cs.vu.nl> a...@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) writes:
>I would suggest that people who post software and intend it to be in the
>public domain, put in a notice to that effect...
In general, this is not merely a good idea, it is necessary. In countries
abiding by the Berne Convention -- which now includes the US -- it is not
necessary to attach a copyright notice for copyright to be in effect. If
you want something to be in the public domain, you *must* say so, in order
to renounce the implicit copyright.
Personally, I don't recommend putting things into PD. A nice permissive
copyright notice like the Berkeley one or the C News one is better. That
way, you can at least insist on getting credit for what you do. (I do
not recommend the GNU copyleft, which is much more restrictive, unless you
really support the Cult of Free Software. Many people find it legally
difficult or impossible to use copylefted software.)
--
It is not possible to both understand | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
and appreciate Intel CPUs. -D.Wolfskill| he...@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!
snorkelwacker!ai-lab!jla
From: j...@wheaties.ai.mit.edu (Joseph Arceneaux)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Selling of free software
Message-ID: <9849@galapas.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 11 Aug 90 14:41:10 GMT
References: <6--4A8C@xds13.ferranti.com> <1990Aug8.173146.1206@santra.uucp>
<meulenbr.650184899@cst> <7268@star.cs.vu.nl>
<1990Aug10.170521.9435@zoo.toronto.edu>
Reply-To: j...@ai.mit.edu (Joseph Arceneaux)
Organization: The GNU Project
Lines: 10
Posted: Sat Aug 11 15:41:10 1990
In article <1990Aug10.170521.9...@zoo.toronto.edu> he...@zoo.toronto.edu
(Henry Spencer) writes:
> (I do
>not recommend the GNU copyleft, which is much more restrictive, unless you
>really support the Cult of Free Software. Many people find it legally
>difficult or impossible to use copylefted software.)
I recomend using Copyleft if you intend to make a contribution of your
code to society. If your intent is indeed to benefit others with your
program, then Copyleft will ensure that no one can eventually prohibit
some group from thus benefitting.
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!hp4nl!star.cs.vu.nl!ast
From: a...@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Your articles sold for cash.
Message-ID: <7291@star.cs.vu.nl>
Date: 12 Aug 90 16:58:38 GMT
References: <26198@nigel.udel.EDU> <650145312.12585@minster.york.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@cs.vu.nl
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Lines: 28
Posted: Sun Aug 12 17:58:38 1990
>In article <26...@nigel.udel.EDU> and...@eleceng.bradford.ac.uk (Andrew G.
Minter) writes:
>PD libraries are allowed to make a "reasonable charge" for conveying
>software, such as cost of postage, disk, cost of running the company, etc.
>If they are charging more than this then they are breaking the law.
Nope. When a work is in the public domain, anyone can do anything he wants
with it, including modifying it, selling it for an abitrary price, and much
more. The only thing he can't do is get it out of the public domain.
This discussion of the law is getting a bit weary. For people who want to
discuss copyright, public domain, and related issues, I strong recommend
the following book (written by 3 ACLU lawyers):
Title: The Rights of Authors and Artists
Authors:K.P. Norwick, J.S. Chasen with H.R. Kaufman
Publ: Bantam Books, 666 Fifth Ave, New York, N.Y. 10103
ISBN: 0-553-23654-7
Price: $3.95
It is only 200 pages and written for nonlawyers, but it explains everyone
you every wanted to know about copyright law, libel, and fun things like
that. A lot of what is said in this and other groups about the law just
ain't so. The book tends to examine things from a civil liberties point
of view (like the question of whether the statement: "All Lithuanians are
child molesters" in a book would be libel under the law), but it also
discusses the copyright law in considerable detail.
Andy Tanenbaum (a...@cs.vu.nl)
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!hp4nl!star.cs.vu.nl!ast
From: a...@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Selling of free software
Message-ID: <7292@star.cs.vu.nl>
Date: 12 Aug 90 17:14:21 GMT
References: <7268@star.cs.vu.nl> <1990Aug10.170521.9435@zoo.toronto.edu>
<9849@galapas.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: n...@cs.vu.nl
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Lines: 25
Posted: Sun Aug 12 18:14:21 1990
In article <9...@galapas.ai.mit.edu> j...@ai.mit.edu (Joseph Arceneaux)
writes:
>I recomend using Copyleft if you intend to make a contribution of your
>code to society. If your intent is indeed to benefit others with your
>program, then Copyleft will ensure that no one can eventually prohibit
>some group from thus benefitting.
If you release your software into the public domain, nobody, not even the
original author, can ever prevent anyone from using it in any way, ever.
If that is your intention, then a statement simply putting the code into
the public domain is enough.
The GNU copyleft has a very serious problem of creating legal obligations
on the part of anyone using it. I have very carefully avoided using any
GNU software in MINIX as well as in Amoeba, even though technically I might
have been willing. Although the intention of copyleft may have been to
make sure the software was always available to the public, for me it has
had just the opposite effect. I can live with public domain and I can
live with copyrighted software plus a statement in the code or in a side
letter granting permission to use it, but a legal, enforceable obligation
to do ANYTHING is going to make any lawyer, including P-H's, sit up and
take notice. What exactly, have they contracted to do, what have they
gotten in return, what record keeping do they have to maintain to defend
a lawsuit, how much in damages might they be liable for, and more.
It is anything but simple.
Andy Tanenbaum (a...@cs.vu.nl)