Message-ID: <3D4BDB89.80704@csi.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 09:32:57 -0400
From: John Colagioia <JColagioia@csi.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020618 Netscape/7.0b1
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Subject: Re: IF library licence / game licence
References: <3d4632e1.170761705@news.buffalo.edu> <aibncg$3e6$2@reader2.panix.com> <3D4A761D.4090809@csi.com> <3d4a7a2c.78465842@news.tiscali.nl> <3D4AC141.7040305@csi.com> <3d4ae42f$0$584$626a54ce@news.free.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net
X-Trace: excalibur.gbmtech.net 1028381120 ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net (3 Aug 2002 09:25:20 -0400)
Organization: ProNet USA Inc.
Lines: 44
X-Authenticated-User: jnc
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp.abs.net!uunet!dca.uu.net!excalibur.gbmtech.net
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:107025

Adrien Beau wrote:
> John Colagioia wrote:
[...]
> It seems to me you forgot something important:
>        c)  The rules those in (b) must follow in order have the
>            rights listed in (a)

As I understand it, that's not entirely relevant, from a legal
standpoint.  It might appear to be a reduction in the granted
rights, but it's the price that's paid (every bit as real as the
monetary price paid for commercial software) to get those rights.

The way it's intended is that, yes, you *can* distribute without
source.  But, to get that right (and any others), you've made a
promise to make the source available in some way.

>>Both Public Domain and GPL licensing extend essentially the
>>same rights to their users.
> I am not a lawyer, and don't wish to be one, but it is my
> understanding there is no such thing as Public Domain licensing.
> When you put a work in the Public Domain, you effectively
> renounce to any and all rights you had on that work. It is not
> a license: you cannot add conditions of use or any other
> restriction; the work doesn't belong to you anymore.

It's an explicit, written statement that grants rights to a work to a
set of individuals (I believe that makes it a license, by
definition).  The phrase "Public Domain licensing" is probably
more than a little sloppy, but works are certainly licensed under the
terms of Public Domain.

Let's just not talk about things *falling* into the Public Domain
after copyright expiration, though...

> See
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#PublicDomainSoftware

I should quickly note that while this all seems factually accurate
(as far as I can tell, at least), it is written to be emotionally
charged so as to leave the reader with "only one possible solution."

Anyway, thanks for pointing out the specific vague points and giving
me the opportunity to clarify them.

