Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!uwmcsd1!bbn!bbn.com!rsalz From: rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: v15INF4: Ignore the copyright on the cu-shell posting Message-ID: <999@fig.bbn.com> Date: 13 Jul 88 16:05:19 GMT References: <981@fig.bbn.com> <2296@epimass.EPI.COM> Organization: BBN Laboratories Inc., Cambridge MA Lines: 65 First, some background. I wrote: While I recognize that the GNU license causes problems for lots of people, and that others just don't like it, it doesn't bother me so I'll probably make an exception for that. Similar for the style of copyright Henry Spencer used on his "strings" library. Rank has its privileges. To which Joe Buck (jbuck@epimass.epi.com) replied: Hell, Rich. The GNU license is one of the most restrictive licenses around. How can you accept the GNU license and reject, say, the type of copyright Larry Wall uses: "Copyright (c) 1988, Larry Wall You may copy the perl kit in whole or in part as long as you don't try to make money off it, or pretend that you wrote it." Foreground. Future quotes (">" lines) are from Joe's article. You're right, Larry's is fine. Should I have changed my original posting to say "Henry's or Larry's style of copyright"? Yeah, probably. But you know what? I didn't think of it. I already waste too much time reading with and dealing with this copyright shit. Consider this glitch further proof. >As for any copyright on the cu-shell posting, seems to me we can't >ignore it. If you had a question you should have rejected the >stuff in question. Yup, I should'a realized. I had the sucker queued up and forget that it had this bogosity in it. Suppose I put out a patch that deleted the copyright? (Rhetorical question; my "ignore it" is the last I'm gonna say on this posting; do what you feel comfortable with.) >As for me, I'll continue to use Larry Wall's style of copyright >when I post something. Why? Just because I'm vain enough to >enjoy getting credit, I suppose. Almost everything I've seen >from the sources groups that's any good has some kind of copyright >on it, anyway. With very few exceptions, I somewhat disagree. If some slime-bucket is going to rip you off, the word copyright on a posting that was sent to thousands of sites world-wide will not prevent it. There is some really good software out there that is truly in the public domain -- John Gilmore's PD tar, pathalias, and (more humbly) my cshar package come to mind as three things I use almost every day. Slapping copyrights on net postings is a relatively recent invention. Rummage through the archives and check, if you think I'm wrong. >Rather than a "no copyright" rule, may I suggest a different set of rules: >* The copyright, if any, must allow the program to be freely distributable. >* Forbid asking for a cash donation or royalty. If you ask for cash, send a demo program, or if I believe the posting is in any way an attempt to make money, it gets sent to /dev/null. If I see a copyright and I can't understand it, the posting gets sent to /dev/null. If I get something that says "copyright Rando M. Hacker; this work is in the public domain" it will get sent to /dev/null. In all cases I'll try to reply and explain why. If I'm really tired and annoyed, the posting will get squirreled away and probably forgotten about. In closing, two last points. First, I'm not at all snapping at Joe, and I hope no one takes it personally. Second, please don't send me mail on this topic unless you are really really sure you've got something new -- and legally correct! -- to say. I've got a half-megabyte of mail on copyrights already, plus circulars from the US copyright office. Okay, three points. :-) I know I have a real wise-ass attitude about this, and I don't care. /rich $alz, moderator of comp.sources.unix -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.