Copyrights and Software Ripoffs
Chuck McManis
Well, lets just say he writes a lot, but to summarize :
John ports Hack to the Amiga
Hack gets distributed on a Fish disk and through bbs's
A company in Calif, 'The Public Domain Connection' picks it up and begins
to market it.
John gets really irritated and flames to the world.
That is the situation in a nutshell. It is situations like this that need
to be reviewed now and then to let those authors out on the net what the
state of the world and law really is. Therefore these comments are
not really aimed at John but the writing public in general.
First lets get the state of 'Public Domain' software out in it's real
light. When you place a piece of software 'in the Public Domain' you
relinquish *all* rights to that software. That means that any person
in the world can pick up that software, market it, sell it for thousands
of dollars, reap big bucks, and they don't have to give you anything in
return. Why? because it is 'Public Domain'. AUTHORS PLEASE NOTE, the
ONLY way you can retain rights to a work are to put the words
'Copyright (C) 1986, Your Name, All Rights Reserved' in *every* piece
of source, embedded in the binaries somewhere (insert it twice, once
in an obvious place and once where it is less obvious, the less obvious
the better), and all over the packaging and documentation. Then and only
then will you be able to retain your rights to that code, also if the
words 'Public Domain' or 'this is Public Domain' appear *anywhere* in
the source or executable, it does not matter if you also have a copy
right notice, the 'Public Domain' takes precedence. (This is apparently
'case law' or, restated differently, the way the courts have interpreted
the copyright act in the past). So beware, and only put things in the
public domain that you *don't care* if someone picks up and markets
without your permission.
And what about your copy rights? Well if you have copyrighted the work,
and all it requires are those simple words in the code, you can sue
for damages, anyone who publishes, markets, or distributes your software
without your permission. When you detect a violation you go down to the
courthouse, register a complaint, and file a motion for an injunction.
Sounds tough but it really is just paperwork. The judge will almost
always sign your injunction whereupon you have to get it 'served' to
the company or persons in question, whereupon they must either cease
distributing your software or the judge will throw them in jail for
contempt (violating an injunction).
Now lets take Johns case :
I don't know if he copyrighted what he did or not so we will have to
leave that issue for him to clarify. If he put his work into the
'Public Domain' he does not have any basis for a complaint. Since
that option would elminate the rest of this article, lets
say he did indeed copyright it. The next question would become
'What was copyrighted?' Certainly it couldn't have been all of
the code since Andries and co wrote that, so it must have been the
Amiga specific stuff. Ok, say that he registers his complaint and
goes off to pursue damages. He will have to argue that it since he
gives away his software, it is immoral for someone else to make money
on it. He will also have to argue why he did not put something in the
Public Domain that he was under contractual pressure not to make any
money from. I worry that since John specifically has refused to take
money for it, it will be very difficult to prove he was 'damaged' by
this other companies distribution and subsequent profit. The only hope
he has is to argue that since he has retained all rights to the code
he can be 'eccentric' in the eyes of the non-computer public by not
letting his programs be sold.
He comments :
>Other companies have asked me if they could market Hack (3 so far) and the
>response has always been NO! I am not the only person involved, we all
>owe a lot to Jay Fenalson, Andries Brouwer, and Don Kneller. It in not
>within my rights (or anyone else's) to make money marketing a collective
>work in the interest of bettering the avaialable software. Just because
>this company failed to check first is no excuse.
As it turns out someone has a right to make money from the code, the
copyright holder, unless it is Public Domain, in which case anyone can
make money with it.
His Options :
*>1) Sue them! This can get expansive for me and them (In their case, they
can use the money they are making off my work!)
Would be difficult to collect damages, you could collect court costs and
if your case has merit a Laywer will probably take it on a contengency
basis. (As the the paren above, they can't if you have an injunction)
*>2) Stop producing freely redistributable software. This is an extreme
solution, but with AmigaWorld working against me it is a reasonable
one.
This is the most common route taken when idealistic young programmers find
out about the realities of the game. Then they become older, wiser
programmers and just nod their head when the young idealistic ones come
up to them with visions of free quality software and goodwill to all.
*>3) Ignore the situation and let them walk all over me and anyone else
who is working for the betterment of the Amiga.
Chalk it up to experience. Take comfort in the knowledge you gained by
doing the port, and the good will it gave you in the Amiga programming
community.
*>4) Force them to stop selling it and make the situation so others do not
attempt to do the same.
This would mean enforcing your copyright, licensing a distributor, and
probably making money. You should either make everything you do public
domain or arrange with your employer to allow you to profit by your other
work. At least in california there is a law that say's anything you do
on your own time with your own equipment is yours to do what you want
with it.
>I strongly lean toward solution #2 - unfortunately with my employment
>restrictions it means no more software on the Amiga. Hence I request
>assistance on solution #4.
You can only do number 4 by going to court. That will probably be more
trouble than it is worth for a 'free program'. It would cost less and
do more if you :
A) Wrote a letter to the editor of all Amiga magazines and brought them
and their readership up to date on the problem.
B) Took out a small ad next to theirs that said any one could get hack
for free by dialing your bullieten board.
[Whew, but that got long winded.]
--
--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcm...@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
Colin Plumb
>
>Could we prevail upon someone from FSF to post thier statement, in fill in the
>blank form, to save the rest of us the research time of designing one,
>and the expense of having a lawyer then double check it (I assume FSF has
>already done this) ??
Well, I'm not from the FSF, but I do have access to their 'General Public
License', so here it is... (after the .signature. You don't have to trim
anything off the end. Isn't that wonderful?)
-Colin Plumb (ccp...@watnot.UUCP)
Zippy says:
I am a jelly donut. I am a jelly donut.
----------- cut here ------- no .signature at end -------- cut here -----------
GNU EMACS GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Copyright (C) 1985 Richard M. Stallman
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license, but changing it is not allowed.
The license agreements of most software companies keep you at the
mercy of those companies. By contrast, our general public license is
intended to give everyone the right to share GNU Emacs. To make
sure that you get the rights we want you to have, we need to make
restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you
to surrender the rights. Hence this license agreement.
Specifically, we want to make sure that you have the right to give
away copies of Emacs, that you receive source code or else can get it
if you want it, that you can change Emacs or use pieces of it in new
free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
To make sure that everyone has such rights, we have to forbid you to
deprive anyone else of these rights. For example, if you distribute
copies of Emacs, you must give the recipients all the rights that you
have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must tell them their rights.
Also, for our own protection, we must make certain that everyone
finds out that there is no warranty for GNU Emacs. If Emacs is
modified by someone else and passed on, we want its recipients to know
that what they have is not what we distributed, so that any problems
introduced by others will not reflect on our reputation.
Therefore we (Richard Stallman and the Free Software Fundation,
Inc.) make the following terms which say what you must do to be
allowed to distribute or change GNU Emacs.
COPYING POLICIES
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of GNU Emacs source
code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously
and appropriately publish on each file a valid copyright notice such
as "Copyright (C) 1985 Richard M. Stallman", containing the year of
last change and name of copyright holder for the file in question;
keep intact the notices on all files that refer to this License
Agreement and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other
recipients of the GNU Emacs program a copy of this License Agreement
along with the program.
2. You may modify your copy or copies of GNU Emacs source code or
any portion of it, and copy and distribute such modifications under
the terms of Paragraph 1 above, provided that you also do the following:
a) cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
who last changed such files and the date of any change; and
b) cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish,
that in whole or in part contains or is a derivative of GNU Emacs
or any part thereof, to be freely distributed
and licensed to all third parties on terms identical to those
contained in this License Agreement (except that you may choose
to grant more extensive warranty protection to third parties,
at your option).
c) if the modified program serves as a text editor, cause it
when started running in the simplest and usual way, to print
an announcement including a valid copyright notice ("Copyright
(C)", the year of authorship, and all copyright owners' names),
saying that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of
this License Agreement.
3. You may copy and distribute GNU Emacs or any portion of it in
compiled, executable or object code form under the terms of Paragraphs
1 and 2 above provided that you do the following:
a) cause each such copy of GNU Emacs to be accompanied by the
corresponding machine-readable source code; or
b) cause each such copy of GNU Emacs to be accompanied by a
written offer, with no time limit, to give any third party
free (except for a nominal shipping charge) machine readable
copy of the corresponding source code; or
c) in the case of a recipient of GNU Emacs in compiled, executable
or object code form (without the corresponding source code) you
shall cause copies you distribute to be accompanied by a copy
of the written offer of source code which you received along
with the copy of GNU Emacs.
4. You may not copy, sublicense, distribute or transfer GNU Emacs
except as expressly provided under this License Agreement. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, sublicense, distribute or transfer GNU Emacs is void and
your rights to use GNU Emacs under this License agreement shall be
automatically terminated. However, parties who have received computer
software programs from you with this License Agreement will not have
their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
Your comments and suggestions about our licensing policies and our
software are welcome! Please contact the Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
1000 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02138, or call (617) 876-3296.
NO WARRANTY
BECAUSE GNU EMACS IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, WE PROVIDE ABSOLUTELY
NO WARRANTY, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE STATE LAW. EXCEPT
WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING, FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION, INC,
RICHARD M. STALLMAN AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE GNU EMACS "AS IS"
WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY
AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE GNU EMACS
PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY
SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW WILL FREE SOFTWARE
FOUNDATION, INC., RICHARD M. STALLMAN, AND/OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY
MODIFY AND REDISTRIBUTE GNU EMACS AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY LOST PROFITS, LOST MONIES, OR OTHER
SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR
INABILITY TO USE (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA
BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY THIRD PARTIES OR A
FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH PROGRAMS NOT DISTRIBUTED BY
FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION, INC.) THE PROGRAM, EVEN IF YOU HAVE BEEN
ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, OR FOR ANY CLAIM BY ANY
OTHER PARTY.
Godfrey Lee
>
>writer's organizations (as I've mentioned before) that exist primarily to
>protect their members from unscrupulous publishers and the like. Wouldn't
>it make sense to form such an association of freelance software authors/
>PD software authors either as a seperate organization or as a sub-organization
>of one of these? Actually, forming such a guild might not be any more
>difficult than creating a new news group. Any thoughts?
>
>Jeff Kesselman
This sounds like a great idea. Don't forget about us folks in Canada.
--
--------------------------------------
Godfrey Lee
Cognos Incorporated
3755 Riverside Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
CANADA K1G 3N3
(613) 738-1440
decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!glee
--------------------------------------