Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>> 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 :)

He He. I was just trying to limit the arguement that, today, some folks
view Open Source as PD.

>> 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 think you release the Copyright to the PD not the license. I'm
not sure how the rules of licensing apply to PD software.

>> 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?

Because Copyright and License are easily confused. This whole
discussion has demonstrated that a few times (including my
mistake above :-).

>> 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.

Originally I think Copylefting was seen as a way to 'stick it to
the man'.  I seem to recall that the GNU foundation wanted you to
assign your Copyrights to the foundation and then use their license
(the GPL). I prefer to keep my Copyrights as that gives me a
choice of which way I license my code. Technically this is all
mute (?) because the company I work for owns all my ideas. :-/
At least that's what the agreement said when I signed it. Trust
me that has given me some items to reflect on over the years.
Luckily the company prefers to concern itself with subjects that
are much closer to what I do for a living (communications). I just
hope the new company has similar views.

-- 
Linux Home Automation         Neil Cherry       ncherry@linuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/                         Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/                    My HA Blog
http://home.comcast.net/~ncherry/               Backup site
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist