> There was no PD software as we
> know it know at the moment Stallman created the GPL.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand this comment (the 'as we know it part').

I think I have to withdraw my statement in the light of the evidence
produced, mylord :)

> One of the problems with Public Domain is that others
> have taken the PD work and change the info and called it their
> work. This had happened to me on 2 occasions.

Indeed. But of course the problem is yours, not theirs: by releasing PD
you had this 'bug' in your license code, which allowed it to operate in
a manner you did not intend.

> I'm not sure someone has mentioned this yet (been a bit tough
> keeping up with the circles on this thread) but
> Copyright != License. 

Of course not, why would anyone assume that?

> Unfortunately Copyleft does include License and Copyright. 

Copyleft it not a well-defined term (it could mean at the very least
either LGPL or GPL). It is true that the texts used to implement for
instance the GPL include a copyright notice, but AFAIK so do all other
source-level licenses. There must be some right to license out, and that
is (in the sense of source level-licenses) mostly (always?) the
copy-right. With some addition of patent rights, in case of the (L)GPL.

> I had to investigate Open Source Licenses
> for the HCS II project. I learned a lot about Copyright and
> Licenses (but that doesn't make me an expert or Lawyer ;-).

No, in that case you would be on the lawlist. I wonder how the
equivalent of James, Olin and Russel (just to name a few) on that list
behave?

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 

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