Good point, Chris. This comes up in discussion of public-domain code and also open-source licenses that allow closed-source derivatives. You are absolutely correct. 1. There is no way, under copyright law in the United States, that someone making a closed-source version of a public-domain or open-source software is able to interfere with the public-domain or open-source original or any existing copyright (or public-domain status) on the material. 1.1 As far as I can tell, there is a misunderstanding of what a copyright claim applies to. 1.2 When I put a copyright claim on a literary work (i.e., software), it applies to that portion of the work that is (1) my original expression and (2) copyrightable subject matter. It does not apply to anything in the work that is not that. In addition, if a portion of the work is subject to the copyright of another, I am in violation of that copyright unless I obtain a license from the original copyright holder that permits any of the actions that are the exclusive right of that copyright holder. (The U.S. Copyright Office and web site provides lots of information on what copyrightable subject-matter is and how this all works. There description is pretty understandable.) 1.3 In particular, if I take a public domain work, and the only change I make to it is to add my copyright notice, I have obtained a copyright on absolutely nothing. And if I charge someone with infringement, one thing they can do is simply produce the public-domain work and demonstrate that it pre-existed the earliest demonstrable distribution of my "version." Similarly, if I make a MIDI arrangement of a popular song and publish it as my work, there is certainly an original component contributed by me, and I am also definitely in violation of the copyright on the elements of the original song which I used without permission. (There are special rules for music and phonorecordings, but this aspect is consistent with the copyright on literary works.) 1.4 (Because copyrights are not patents, there are even more interesting cases. -- If I demonstrate that I completely independently created a work, having no knowledge of your work that it resembles, that is not an infringement either. And the ideas in a copyrighted expression are not themselves subject to the copyright.) 2. It has been pointed out to me that there is a way that an open source *developer* might become "tainted." If someone makes an allowable or licensed derivative that has improvements to the original work, and does not elect to use the original license, the developer needs to be extremely careful about learning about those and about incorporating any of them back into the original open-source version. It seems to me you are entirely correct. There is no way to pre-empt the public-domain or open-source status of a work of software by wrapping the covered work in copyright notices and proprietary notices. -- Dennis -----Original Message----- From: python-list-admin at python.org [mailto:python-list-admin at python.org]On Behalf Of Chris Watson Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 19:17 To: Mitchell Baker Cc: David Ascher; tchur at optushome.com.au; mertz at gnosis.cx; python-list at python.org; DickH at ActiveState.com Subject: Re: Komodo in violation of Mozilla Public License? > This allows us to make sure that MPL code is always open and not > privatized. At the same time, it allows those building products to You know I usually let this slip because I get sick of license wars. But can you explain to me how the MPL or any other public license prevents the closing of source covered with that license? If I release foo.c version 1.0 under a MPL. And company A comes along and takes a copy of the source of foo.c 1.0 and closes it off and refuses to release work they did on it. Can you tell me what magical creature came along and removed foo.c version 1.0 under the MPL off the face of the globe? The same version that company A borrowed/used/stole/whatever. I mean maybe im missing something. Maybe I dont have enough conspiracy theory blood in me. But how can you close a copy of source that is given to the public? Who or what comes along and with divine intervention removes the public version from the planet? ============================================================================ = -Chris Watson (316) 326-3862 | FreeBSD Consultant, FreeBSD Geek Work: scanner at jurai.net | Open Systems Inc., Wellington, Kansas Home: scanner at deceptively.shady.org | http://open-systems.net ============================================================================ = WINDOWS: "Where do you want to go today?" LINUX: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?" BSD: "Are you guys coming or what?" ============================================================================ = irc.openprojects.net #FreeBSD -Join the revolution! ICQ: 20016186 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4