GNU licence and the 'origional' author.
Russell McOrmond
origional author of a program that is given the GNU licence? I got
into an Email conversation (With an author that I am not going to
mention since I didn't get his permission to crosspost this message)
that I would very much like to get a definative author of.
>> The author does not 'retain copyright'. Yes, the program is
>> copywritten, and it's in the 'name' of the Author, but once the
>> origional author makes use of the GPL, he has the same rights as
>> everyone else.
>>
>> > The author can do anything with the code. The recipient of a
>> > GPL'd dist can only change/redistributed under GPL.--
>>
>> This is a VERY different impression than has been given by ALL
>> discussions to date on GPL, and an impression that I feel is
>> incorrect.
>
>You are wrong.
---
Russell McOrmond, Ottawa Ontario, Canada | Standard Disclaimer applies.
Freenet: aa...@freenet.carleton.ca (Faster) | WPL 'keeper of sources'.
Home: r...@Atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca, 1:163/109 | Libertyware Telecomunications.
Tim Smith
>> copywritten, and it's in the 'name' of the Author, but once the
>> origional author makes use of the GPL, he has the same rights as
>> everyone else.
It depends on what the author does. If the author assigns the copyright
to FSF or someone else, the author won't retain it, of course. If the
author merely distributes under GPL, the author retains the copyright.
>> > The author can do anything with the code. The recipient of a
>> > GPL'd dist can only change/redistributed under GPL.--
First sentence: right, assuming the author didn't assign the copyright
to someone else. Second sentence: right, unless the recipient makes a
separate arrangement with the copyright holder.
--
"Pope moved that we strike from the State's brief and appendix a selection from
the Year Book of 1484 written in Medieval Latin and references thereto. The
State provided no translation and conceded a total lack of knowledge of what it
meant. The motion is granted" 396 A.2d 1054 --Tim Smith
Jyrki Kuoppala
>>> The author does not 'retain copyright'. Yes, the program is
>>> copywritten, and it's in the 'name' of the Author, but once the
>>> origional author makes use of the GPL, he has the same rights as
>>> everyone else.
>
>It depends on what the author does. If the author assigns the copyright
>to FSF or someone else, the author won't retain it, of course. If the
>author merely distributes under GPL, the author retains the copyright.
By the way, according to the Finnish copyright law, the author can't
assign the copyright as a whole, ie. can not give up all his rights to
the work. It doesn't say what rights remain, however.
//Jyrki
Ballintijn GC
[ stuff deleted... ]
>>It depends on what the author does. If the author assigns the copyright
>>to FSF or someone else, the author won't retain it, of course. If the
>>author merely distributes under GPL, the author retains the copyright.
>By the way, according to the Finnish copyright law, the author can't
>assign the copyright as a whole, ie. can not give up all his rights to
>the work. It doesn't say what rights remain, however.
>//Jyrki
I think the same goes for Dutch Law. Is the Berner convention not a
treaty which gives some rules/guidelines concerning this sort of things?
Are there people out there who know this treaty?
Gerco Ballintijn (bcb...@cs.vu.nl)
Rahul Dhesi
(Tim Smith) writes:
>It depends on what the author does. If the author assigns the copyright
>to FSF or someone else, the author won't retain it, of course. If the
>author merely distributes under GPL, the author retains the copyright.
I happen to believe that the original author retains exactly the same
rights after placing software under the GNU license as before. The
author merely grants *others* certain rights that they did not
previously have.
No individual (under US law, at least) can unilaterally give up any
legal rights. Only a *bilateral* transaction, in which there is some
sort of exchange with some other party, can one give up any rights.
Placing one's own software under the GNU license is a unilateral
transaction.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@cirrus.com>
also: dh...@rahul.net
Harald Hanche-Olsen
dhesi> No individual (under US law, at least) can unilaterally give up any
dhesi> legal rights. Only a *bilateral* transaction, in which there is some
dhesi> sort of exchange with some other party, can one give up any rights.
Are you sure about this? If so, it must imply that you cannot
possibly place any result of your work in the public domain. So even
if I find a program out there in netland and it is stated to be in the
public domain, the author actually retains the copyright, and I have
to ask permission to use and copy it? Seems I have broken lots and
lots of copyrights.
Surely you're joking...?
- Harald
Tim Smith
>No individual (under US law, at least) can unilaterally give up any
>legal rights. Only a *bilateral* transaction, in which there is some
>sort of exchange with some other party, can one give up any rights.
Cite? Are you telling me that when I give someone a gift for Christmas
or their birthday, I've not really given them anything, since I can't
legally give up my ownership of the item unilaterally?
Per Abrahamsen
>>>>> "Harald" == Harald Hanche-Olsen <han...@ams.sunysb.edu> writes:
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jun 1993 21:53:08 GMT, dh...@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi) said:
dhesi> No individual (under US law, at least) can unilaterally give up any
dhesi> legal rights. Only a *bilateral* transaction, in which there is some
dhesi> sort of exchange with some other party, can one give up any rights.
Harald> If so, it must imply that you cannot
Harald> possibly place any result of your work in the public domain.
Not as I read Rahul Dhesi's article. By making it public domain, you
give everybody the right to do anything with the software. You also
keep the right to do anything with the software.
Even if you have made the software public domain, you are still
allowed sell it under a more strict copyright. It will just be more
difficult to find buyers, unless you bundle the software with
something else.
Per Abrahamsen
dh...@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
Rahul> No individual (under US law, at least) can unilaterally give up any
Rahul> legal rights. Only a *bilateral* transaction, in which there is some
Rahul> sort of exchange with some other party, can one give up any rights.
>>>>> "Tim" == Tim Smith <t...@stein2.u.washington.edu> writes:
Tim> Are you telling me that when I give someone a gift for Christmas
Tim> or their birthday, I've not really given them anything, since I can't
Tim> legally give up my ownership of the item unilaterally?
Is `someone' forced to accept the gift? If not, it is a bilateral
agreement.
Alan Cox
Of course you can place something in the public domain. You don't give up
your rights and cannot do so in some countries. You've just given everyone
writes to do what they like with your code - you've not got rid of your own
rights to do things with it.
Alan
Piet van Oostrum
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jun 1993 21:53:08 GMT, dh...@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi) said:
dhesi> No individual (under US law, at least) can unilaterally give up any
dhesi> legal rights. Only a *bilateral* transaction, in which there is some
dhesi> sort of exchange with some other party, can one give up any rights.
HH> Are you sure about this? If so, it must imply that you cannot
HH> possibly place any result of your work in the public domain. So even
HH> if I find a program out there in netland and it is stated to be in the
HH> public domain, the author actually retains the copyright, and I have
HH> to ask permission to use and copy it? Seems I have broken lots and
HH> lots of copyrights.
You don't have to ask for permission, because the author already gave you
permission. That's what PD means. He (or she) didn't give up any rights,
but just gave you permission to use it. Yes, formally that means he gave up
the right to refuse you to make copies. So what?
--
Piet* van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University,
Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Telephone: +31 30 531806 Uucp: uunet!mcsun!ruuinf!piet
Telefax: +31 30 513791 Internet: pi...@cs.ruu.nl (*`Pete')
Barry Margolin
>You don't have to ask for permission, because the author already gave you
>permission. That's what PD means. He (or she) didn't give up any rights,
>but just gave you permission to use it. Yes, formally that means he gave up
>the right to refuse you to make copies. So what?
Well, if the original author retains all his rights, then presumably he
would have the right to take the program *out* of the public domain if he
changes his mind, i.e. to revoke the license he gave everyone. Is that
true?
--
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.
bar...@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
David Dyer-Bennet
>No individual (under US law, at least) can unilaterally give up any
>legal rights. Only a *bilateral* transaction, in which there is some
>sort of exchange with some other party, can one give up any rights.
>Placing one's own software under the GNU license is a unilateral
>transaction.
There's at least one exception to this blanket statement: an author can
release something to the public domain. That's a unilateral transaction, and
clearly does give up some legal rights. It's harder to do by mistake than it
used to be, but it's still easy to do intentionally.
--
--
David Dyer-Bennet Network Systems Corporation
d...@anubis.network.com Brooklyn Park, MN
d...@tdkt.kksys.com My postings represent at most my own opinions.
Greg Hennessy
#Well, if the original author retains all his rights, then presumably he
#would have the right to take the program *out* of the public domain if he
#changes his mind, i.e. to revoke the license he gave everyone.
Public domain means that the work has no copyright on it.
I am not aware that public domain status can be revoked.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gs...@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Richard M. Hartman
Harald is right. Dhesi implies that you can not give up the
right to control what is done with your code. You can, it
is called "releasing into the public domain". The fact that
you yourself can still distribute code that is now public
domain has nothing to do with the rights you have given up
(i.e. the right to sue for compensation, the right to require
credit for your work, etc).
-Richard Hartman
har...@ulogic.COM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
glockh belvars: cannot recover
David Dyer-Bennet
>In article <1993Jun14.1...@cs.ruu.nl> pi...@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum) writes:
>>You don't have to ask for permission, because the author already gave you
>>permission. That's what PD means. He (or she) didn't give up any rights,
>>but just gave you permission to use it. Yes, formally that means he gave up
>>the right to refuse you to make copies. So what?
>
>Well, if the original author retains all his rights, then presumably he
>would have the right to take the program *out* of the public domain if he
>changes his mind, i.e. to revoke the license he gave everyone. Is that
>true?
To my knowledge, no. When something falls (or is placed) into the public
domain, it cannot be reclaimed, by the original author or anybody else. (It
is possible to create new works, derived from a pd work, which are
copyrightable, but it's actually the new stuff that the copyright covers.)
George M. Sipe
>>You don't have to ask for permission, because the author already gave you
>>permission. That's what PD means. He (or she) didn't give up any rights,
>>but just gave you permission to use it. Yes, formally that means he gave up
>>the right to refuse you to make copies. So what?
>
>Well, if the original author retains all his rights, then presumably he
>would have the right to take the program *out* of the public domain if he
>changes his mind, i.e. to revoke the license he gave everyone. Is that
>true?
If the copyright owner places it in the public domain, then he abandons
the copyright and all rights to it. Think of him as the ex-copyright
owner. He then has no legal rights to it over what anyone else has.
He could no more "take the program *out* of the public domain" than
anyone else could.
Intellectual property placed into the public domain is without
copyright. All claims to copyright are abandoned. No one can grant or
remove your right to use it since no one owns it. You *have* the right
to use it any way you wish. You may copyright your derived version and
place whatever restrictions you want on it. Everyone else can take the
public domain version and do likewise (however, they can not take your
copyrighted version except as you license it and vise-versa). You may
even claim you wrote it from scratch (unethical, but legal). Whatever.
If "the original author retains all his rights" then it is *not* in the
public domain. It is copyrighted. It may be freely available. It may
be shareware. It may be copylefted. It is copyrighted. Your right
to use it is based on the license you are granted.
If you are granted a license to use copyrighted software and no time
limit exists in that license, then your right to continue using it can
not be revoked (as long as you continue to comply with the license).
The owner of the copyright may change the licensing terms in future
versions. To use them, you must comply with the license at that time.
--
Manager, Strategic Services - (404) 728-8062 - Georg...@Pyramid.com
Ozan S. Yigit
Well, if the original author retains all his rights, then presumably he
would have the right to take the program *out* of the public domain if he
changes his mind, i.e. to revoke the license he gave everyone. Is that
true?
No, it is not. Public Domain means absence of copyright, and any and
all protections offered by the copyright. In other words, the public
at large has all the rights the author had, no more, no less. Things
become public domain either through explicit placement by the author,
through the expiry of the author's copyright [all things will become
public domain, sooner or later ;)], and because of possible mistakes
in the actual copyright. I include some useful refs below.
oz
---
[1] William S. Strong.
The Copyright Book: A Practical Guide.
MIT Press, fourth edition 1993.
[2] World International Property Organization.
Guide to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary
and Artistic Works (Paris Act, 1971).
Geneva, 1978.
Richard M. Hartman
>Barry Margolin writes:
>#Well, if the original author retains all his rights, then presumably he
>#would have the right to take the program *out* of the public domain if he
>#changes his mind, i.e. to revoke the license he gave everyone.
>
>Public domain means that the work has no copyright on it.
Not quite. A work with no copyright notice is actually protected
by certain basic rights since we signed the Berne Convention ...
of course the original author may have some difficulty proving it
is his but that is a separate matter.
To be in the public domain, there must be a notice explicitly
releasing interest in these rights.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Why do we never get an answer |
when we're knocking at the door? | -Richard Hartman
because the truth is hard to swallow | har...@uLogic.COM
that's what the war of love is for. |
Michael C. Berch
>No individual (under US law, at least) can unilaterally give up any
>legal rights. Only a *bilateral* transaction, in which there is some
>sort of exchange with some other party, can one give up any rights.
>Placing one's own software under the GNU license is a unilateral
>transaction.
I'm afraid I came in about a week late on this, but I wanted to try to
clear up a misconception -- what I think Mr. Dhesi is trying to say is
that an agreement (contract) is not valid without consideration. This
is certainly true, but applies only to contract law.
Copyright licenses are a grant of property rights, and as such, need
not be supported by consideration. Consider them analogous to deeds
to a parcel of real property -- Smith can deed a piece of property to
Jones as a gift, or on the condition that Jones use it for a school,
or whatever, and the fact that Smith gets nothing in return does not
invalidate the deed or the transfer of property rights.
In the same way, the owner of a copyright is said to control a
"bundle" of rights, and can parcel them out however he wants. This is
often confusing, because in the normal case, there *is* a contract,
such as a publishing contract, in which an author agrees to license
a copyright to a publisher, in exchange for which the publisher
agrees to pay royalties to the author. The fact that this does not
happen with the GPL does not invalidate the property rights granted
thereby.
--
Michael C. Berch
Member of the California Bar
m...@postmodern.com / m...@presto.ig.com / m...@net.bio.net
D. J. Bernstein
> would have the right to take the program *out* of the public domain if he
> changes his mind, i.e. to revoke the license he gave everyone.
It's a waiver, not a license.
There is at least one way in which it is possible to revoke a
perpetual waiver of copyright, i.e., to take something out of the public
domain: viz., the 35-year rule. Anyone who says ``you can't do this'' is
wrong.
---Dan
D. J. Bernstein
unenforceable. If you promise to give someone $100000, and you later
decide you'd rather keep the money, no problem. You can't be held to a
one-sided contract.
This is, I assume, what Rahul was referring to.
abr...@research.att.com (Per Abrahamsen) writes:
> t...@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
> > Are you telling me that when I give someone a gift for Christmas
> > or their birthday, I've not really given them anything, since I can't
> > legally give up my ownership of the item unilaterally?
> Is `someone' forced to accept the gift? If not, it is a bilateral
> agreement.
There's no contract in that situation.
---Dan
D. J. Bernstein
> Copyright licenses are a grant of property rights, and as such, need
> not be supported by consideration.
Copyrights are _not_ the same as property rights. (Nor should they be,
given their origins.)
> Consider them analogous to deeds
> to a parcel of real property -- Smith can deed a piece of property to
> Jones as a gift, or on the condition that Jones use it for a school,
> or whatever, and the fact that Smith gets nothing in return does not
> invalidate the deed or the transfer of property rights.
But that's simply not true! This is why houses, parcels of land, and so
on are not given away---by convention they're sold for $1.
---Dan
Greg Lindahl
[ quotes a posting from a member of the California Bar, discussing a
legal issue ]
>But that's simply not true!
Are you a lawyer, Dan? Or are you merely a layman, who can't even
read?
Michael C. Berch
> m...@niobium.postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) writes:
> > Copyright licenses are a grant of property rights, and as such, need
> > not be supported by consideration.
>
> Copyrights are _not_ the same as property rights. (Nor should they be,
> given their origins.)
The fact that copyright is a statutory creation and did not exist at
common law does not mean that the rights afforded by copyright -- just
like those with respect to patents and trademarks -- are not property
rights. They are monopolies granted by the state and have economic
value, hence the collective term "intellectual property". And like
other property, intellectual property is freely alienable, subject to
statutory limitations -- you are free to sell, barter, give away,
license, etc., these rights.
> > Consider them analogous to deeds
> > to a parcel of real property -- Smith can deed a piece of property to
> > Jones as a gift, or on the condition that Jones use it for a school,
> > or whatever, and the fact that Smith gets nothing in return does not
> > invalidate the deed or the transfer of property rights.
>
> But that's simply not true! This is why houses, parcels of land, and so
> on are not given away---by convention they're sold for $1.
This "convention", at least for gifts, may be something local to your
jurisdiction; it is certainly not widespread or a part of common law.
Perhaps you are confusing it with the boilerplate recitation in
*contracts*, "for $1 received and other valuable consideration", which
was considered necessary to show consideration in a contract. At
common law, title to real property passed when a written grant (deed)
was executed *and delivered to the grantee* (there were lots of famous
cases involving undelivered deeds, etc.). This is essentially the
modern rule in common law jurisdictions.
I would suggest a soujourn back to a first-year Property casebook or
hornbook, or even something like the Nutshell guide; you seem to have
had some sort of legal training but unfortunately property law is one
of those archaic topics that never seems to sit well unless it is
hammered into you on a daily basis by a droning, elderly professor. :-)
The history of the common law of property, and the way that it is
taught in American law schools, is based on the concepts of estates in
land, which can become horribly complex, with grant constructions like
"To A for life, then to B for life, and thence to the heirs of C."
Back then it was considered rather crass to sell land; you were
expected to give it away, presumably to relatives.
The only reasons I can think of to recite on a deed (or contract for
deed) is to show that the transaction is NOT a gift (gift tax issues,
estate planning issues), or to avoid ad valorem transfer taxes. A
Deed of Gift, with no mention of consideration, is perfectly common
around here (Calif.), and also in Canada (Manitoba at least), the
latter I am familiar with due to having been involved with the
settlement of my grandparents' estates.
To bring this back to focus, it would seem that you argue that all
transfers of property must be supported by consideration in order to
be valid, which would render null any concept of gifts, irrevocable
trusts, and so forth, which is simply not the case -- whether the
subject matter is real property or personal property (including
intellectual property).
--
Michael C. Berch
Tim Smith
>> to a parcel of real property -- Smith can deed a piece of property to
>> Jones as a gift, or on the condition that Jones use it for a school,
>> or whatever, and the fact that Smith gets nothing in return does not
>> invalidate the deed or the transfer of property rights.
>
>But that's simply not true! This is why houses, parcels of land, and so
>on are not given away---by convention they're sold for $1.
You are simply wrong. See Cunningham, Stoebuck, and Whitman's _The Law
of Property, Lawyer's Edition_, pages 714 and 717. In most states, there
is no need to claim any form of consideration in a deed. See also
Browder, Cunningham, Nelson, Stoebuck, and Whitman's _Basic Property
Law_, 5th edition, page 760:
"Since a conveyance is not a contract--although it is the
result of an agreement--it is never necessary to prove the
payment of a consideration in order to establish the validity
of the conveyance as between grantor and grantee. The owner
of land has the same right to give it away as he has to sell
it, provided he is not insolvent and will not be rendered
insolvent by making the gift--in which case only his creditors
can complain."
Note, however, that many conveyances of land involve a contract to deliver
a deed. This can be a little confusing.
Kjetil Torgrim Homme
Please do one or more of the following:
- move the discussion to misc.legal
- limit your distribution to USA
- drop the subject
US property law isn't an appropriate topic for gnu.misc.discuss.
Kjetil T.
Tim Smith
m...@niobium.postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) writes:
>The only reasons I can think of to recite on a deed (or contract for
>deed) is to show that the transaction is NOT a gift (gift tax issues,
>estate planning issues), or to avoid ad valorem transfer taxes. A
There are a couple of other reasons you might want to put in a recitation
that there was consideration. If there are any problems with recording the
deed (or, rather, with other people also recording deeds to the same land)
a recitation of consideration will make it easier for the grantee to look
like a bona fide purchaser, which is a good thing to look like in many
states. Another reason is to rebut any implication of a trust being
created in favor of the grantor.
Ozan S. Yigit
| > Well, if the original author retains all his rights, then presumably he
| > would have the right to take the program *out* of the public domain if he
| > changes his mind, i.e. to revoke the license he gave everyone.
|
| It's a waiver, not a license.
|
| There is at least one way in which it is possible to revoke a
| perpetual waiver of copyright, i.e., to take something out of the public
| domain: viz., the 35-year rule. Anyone who says ``you can't do this'' is
| wrong.
|
| ---Dan
Why don't you properly qualify your statements?
Michael I Bushnell
[ US Law discussions deleted ]
Sorry, not so. Gnu.misc.discuss is the proper forum for the
discussion of the legal validity of the GPL (it was created to get
such discussions out of the technical GNU mailing lists). Such
discussion necessarily involves the details of the legal systems of
specific countries, and certainly the nature of property rights.
--
+1 617 628 6197 (H) | Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving
+1 617 253 8568 (W) -+- and make good your vows to the Most High.
14 Paulina Street | Call upon me in the day of trouble;
Somerville, MA 02144 | I will deliver you, and you shall honor me.
D. J. Bernstein
> In the referenced article, d...@silverton.berkeley.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes:
> > m...@niobium.postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) writes:
> > > Copyright licenses are a grant of property rights, and as such, need
> > > not be supported by consideration.
> > Copyrights are _not_ the same as property rights.
By way of example I cite the fact that interests in copyright are
outside the scope of the interstate-transportation-of-stolen-property
statute.
Berch, have any judges confirmed your view that copyright licenses need
not be supported by consideration? The presumption is the opposite.
> > (Nor should they be,
> > given their origins.)
> The fact that copyright is a statutory creation and did not exist at
> common law does not mean that the rights afforded by copyright -- just
> like those with respect to patents and trademarks -- are not property
> rights.
But it does mean that they _should not be_ the same as property rights.
(You seem to be taking my parenthetical remark as if it had been meant
to justify the previous sentence. It was not. It was just a side remark.)
By the way, when I use the phrase ``are the same as property rights,'' I
mean ``are property rights for all purposes,'' not ``are property rights
for some purposes.''
---Dan
D. J. Bernstein
the copyright owner is analogous to (1) the act of giving away a piece
of real property, (2) a license without consideration for the use of
real property, or (3) a contract to give away real property?
I was arguing against (3): your point is that the GPL is enforceable,
and (3) is an example of a contract which is _not_ enforceable, so that
analogy wouldn't prove your point.
Similarly for (2): such a license can be revoked at any time.
If you meant (1): How would you prove in court that something which
looks like a license and calls itself a license and is worded like a
license, albeit an unenforceable license, is not in fact a license, but
is in fact just like a gift?
---Dan
Rahul Dhesi
discussions stray so far nobody remembers what the original question
was :-)
I am essentially making the claim that by placing software under the
GNU license, you are not losing any rights over it. You are granting
others certain rights. Corollaries:
- You can violate the GNU license for your software without violating
copyright law. Why? Because you cannot unilaterally give up your
rights. So you are not bound by the GNU license even though you
have placed your software under it.
- You can later revoke the rights that you granted to others
when you placed the software under the GNU license. Why? Because
you did not grant any rights to any specific person. What would be
the grounds of a lawsuit? That you violated a contract? There was
none. Fraud? Maybe. Some sort of general tort for damages?
Perhaps. Even if a court rules that you can't revoke your decision,
that ruling will likely only be given to protect a specific defendant
who suffered actual damages as a consequence of your revoking your
decision. I doubt very much that a court will rule that you can't
revoke your decision at all, only that you must compensate *this*
specific defendant with *proven* damages, or let him keep using your
software.
I don't know of any enabling legislation that allows a
person to place software under the GNU license and be unable to
revoke this decision later.
I am not claiming that my claim is provably correct, only that it's a
claim! Sometimes such claims are proven wrong, not because they were
wrong when they were made, but because judges make new law all the
time. Free software lies near the periphery of tried and trusted legal
precedents. Who knows what the next judge will decide?
Most judges who use computers at home use Macintoshes. Need I say
more?
===== begin saved article =====
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 21:53:08 GMT
From: dh...@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: GNU licence and the 'origional' author.
Sender: ne...@cirrus.com
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.
References: <C8Dzo...@cunews.carleton.ca> <1v82is...@news.u.washington.edu>
In <1v82is...@news.u.washington.edu> t...@stein2.u.washington.edu
(Tim Smith) writes:
>It depends on what the author does. If the author assigns the copyright
>to FSF or someone else, the author won't retain it, of course. If the
>author merely distributes under GPL, the author retains the copyright.
I happen to believe that the original author retains exactly the same
rights after placing software under the GNU license as before. The
author merely grants *others* certain rights that they did not
previously have.
No individual (under US law, at least) can unilaterally give up any
legal rights. Only a *bilateral* transaction, in which there is some
sort of exchange with some other party, can one give up any rights.
Placing one's own software under the GNU license is a unilateral
transaction.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@cirrus.com>
also: dh...@rahul.net
===== end saved article =====
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@cirrus.com>
also: dh...@rahul.net