[POLITICS] Re: When is the Last Time You Booted to Windows?

[Mike McCarty]

Joel Rees wrote:
> 
> On 2006.2.21, at 11:47 PM, Mike McCarty wrote:
> 
>>>> Eh? GPL restricts redistribution.
>>>
>>> Only conditionally. Putting something under public domain means that
>>> people can take that software and republish it under proprietary terms.
>>
>>
>> No, it does not. Something which is placed into the public domain is
>> public.
> 
> In what sense?

In the same sense that all public documents are public. No one
can copyright the transcript of a court case, for example.
Any and all have free access to that information.

>>  It does not allow anyone to take ownership of it.
> 
> Unfortunately, this is not quite true.

I challenge you to get ownership of the transcript
of a court case, and copyright it.

>> The wheel
>> is, for example, public domain.
> 
> 
> Well, the idea of a wheel is.

Ideas are not patentable. Devices, processes, and improvements
to same are.

>>  It cannot be patented.
> 
> 
> It cannot be patented because it is obvious, not because previous 

It cannot be patented because there is prior art, placing it
into the public domain. At least, that's what my patent lawyer
told me.

> patents have lapsed into the public domain. I'm not sure why I'm 
> pointing this out, except to emphasize the necessity of being precise.
> 
>>  Likewise,
>> something which is public domain cannot be copyright,
> 
> 
> But the performance, expression, and even the reprinting in a different 
> layout of something which is in the public domain can, indeed, be placed 
> under copyright.

Under certain circumstances this is correct, so long as another work
is created. Changing layout is the place where you are on shaky
ground. Unless a substantially different work is produced, then
simply reformatting cannot do what you claim.

>>  nor can it be
>> trade secret. It can be sold, but it cannot be owned.
> 
> I have a piece of software which I placed in the public domain. Or, 
> rather, I used to have it. I still have copies of it lying around. But 
> it is not mine. If someone were to claim copyright on it, I would have 
> to fight his claims as a member of the public receiving damage, not as 
> the owner. If I were to try to put my copyright back on it, said someone 
> could fight my claims on exactly the same standing.

Absolutely. Putting something into public domain relinquishes
all individual claim to it. I suppose that you mean "if someone
were to claim copyright, and I wished to fight that clam, then..."
Certainly you would be under no obligation to dispute.

> This particular piece of software was a fairly close translation from 
> one assembly language and run-time architecture to another of another 
> item of PD software. If the original had been licensed under a BSD class 
> license, I'd have legally been required to specify the derivation, and 
> it would have been under two copyrights. But it was PD, so the only 
> reason I had to even acknowledge that it was derived was that I know 
> that you get what you give. I could easily have claimed copyright, and, 
> if I had chosen to abuse my claim, I could have caused trouble for other 
> implementors in courts, just because suits are expensive.

Well, here there is a fine line. If you basically did a "lessee,
these five instructions do *this* and those twelve do *that*
in C", then probably you don't have a substantially different work,
just a translation into another language. OTOH, algorithms are
not subject to copyright. So if you translated the algorithm, then
you could copyright it yourself.

> So, yeah, in an ideal sense, you're right. Public Domain can't be 
> legally be claimed by someone else. In a practical sense, it is not 
> protected from such claims to the same degree as copyrighted works are.

Neither are copyright works protected any more than this. Only
by going to court can one enforce them, they don't enforce
themselves. Neither do patents.

I had a conversation with a professor of mine who had a friend
who patented a combined "eyeglasses and hearing aid". They
were marketed by Zenith (I recall seeing the ads on TV).
But Zenith didn't own the patent, a friend of my prof's did.
Zenith took the attitude "We'll fight it in court, and by the
time you'd win, which you would if you could spend enough money, time,
and effort, we'll have gotten all the money out of it we need,
and you'll be broke, and have to stop pursuing us."

You might investigate "the case against patents"
http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp

> I've got to hit the hay, or I'm going to catch your cold.

Sleep well.

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!