Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!cbmvax!andy From: andy@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Andy Finkel) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Tiny clock program (my own rewrite) Message-ID: <1129@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> Date: Wed, 17-Dec-86 12:31:03 EST Article-I.D.: cbmvax.1129 Posted: Wed Dec 17 12:31:03 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Dec-86 03:06:30 EST References: <6914@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1936@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Reply-To: andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA Lines: 59 In article <1936@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (Don't have strength to leave) Meyer) writes: >In article <6914@decwrl.DEC.COM> wecker@cookie.dec.com (DAVE CUM GRANO SALIS WECKER) writes: >>I thought people might like this... it is a repost of Mike Meyer's clock >>program with the following goodies: > >I don't like it - in fact, I'm royally P.O.'d about it. Dave, in one >posting, you've managed to: > I'm not a lawyer, but I've talked to many on this since it seems to be a concern to most software authors and companies. So I'd like to make the following statements: (not in order) > 4) Place my code in the public domain, when I hadn't done so. He hasn't done this...even though the copy was distributed without a notice, your copyright is still valid. All he could do is place his own code in public domain. If anyone could put anyone else's work into public domain just by publishing it without a copyright notice, copyrights wouldn't last long. You might have to take some action, however, to protect your copyrights > 1) Break the law. Probably true, but also probably unintentionally. > 2) Put *false* words in my mouth, and in so doing > 3) Misrepresent my position on PD software. >Firstly, my copyright notice has disappeared. Since permission to >redistribute was granted ON THE CONDITION that it not disappear, >you've broken the law. I'll concede that this is a shaky copyright >notice, but that's not a good reason for doing what you did. As far as I can tell, your original copyright is prefectly fine in its intent, and wording. >Dave, this action is, as far as I'm concerned, indistinguishable from >that of people who sell code that's marked "public domain, not for >sale." There's no such thing as "public domain, not for sale." Either it is Public Domain, which means any member of the public is free to do anything to it, including sell it, or it is copyrighted (possibly freely redistributable). This difference is important! >