On Sunday 18 December 2005 03:19 pm, Marc Lavall=E9e wrote:
> Le 18 D=E9cembre 2005 14:01, Wouter van Ooijen a =E9crit=A0:
> > > You can't turn PD work into something proprietary...
> >
> > AFAIK you can. You create a derived work, which is automatically
> > copyrighted by you. If you owe nothing to the original author you
> > affectively have the full copyright, including the right to keep
>
> A devired work is something different. It's not a PD work. All
> derived work must comply with the copyright of the original work. The
> PD concept applies to the expiration of copyrighted works. PD is the
> absence of copyright. So, even if new editions of old books are
> derived works and are copyrighted, their content are not copyrighted,
> at least not the parts that are in the PD; I can even scan the
> content of new editions, redistribute it for free, or encrypt it and
> ask for millions (hoping that some fools will pay you). Even in
> extremely closed forms, a work in the PD is not proprietary.

Okay, let's say I agree with all of your assertions.  (And I do.)

I take a PD codebase, create a work, compile binaries and release my new =

program to the world -- if the original author retains no copyright =

(you said yourself none exists), and I don't release my source code... =

where would the real-world lawsuit come from to challenge the person =

who created the derived work?  =


There's a difference between the letter of PD law and the practice in =

reality.  Even if the derived work is supposedly PD somehow -- who'd =

care?  No judge is going to require a person creating a derived work =

from something explicitly stated as PD and where the original copyright =

owner explicitly gave away all rights, to release their new source or =

call their new derived work anything but their own.

-- =

Nate Duehr, nate@natetech.com

-- =

http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist