From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c887193050c097ce X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-11 06:56:55 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!193.174.75.178!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!RRZ.Uni-Koeln.DE!uni-duisburg.de!not-for-mail From: Georg Bauhaus Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:56:54 +0000 (UTC) Organization: GMUGHDU Message-ID: References: <3C625604.1C948A06@gmx.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de X-Trace: a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de 1013439414 26963 134.91.4.34 (11 Feb 2002 14:56:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uni-duisburg.de NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:56:54 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (HP-UX/B.11.00 (9000/800)) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19863 Date: 2002-02-11T14:56:54+00:00 List-Id: David Starner wrote: : On Sun, 10 Feb 2002 12:07:28 +0000 (UTC), Georg Bauhaus wrote: :> Keith Thompson wrote: :> works when the laws of the US of America apply. : : Huh? Why? If code has been placed in the public domain in the US, it's : probably been placed in the public domain everywhere. There's not much : code that's in the public domain because of obscure US legal reasons. Everywhere from a US point of view, maybe, I don't know. But over here, the originator (need to talk about them too) of a work is always a human beeing and can in a sense be held responsible for what he or she has created. "Responsibility" has to be defined but this doesn't change the fact that you have to be careful here when you talk about your software being in the public domain. It is not always just the software user who has to think about consequences of using software according to some or no license (where applicable) but also the originator. There were/are days when governments (at least over here) require(d) every piece of writ to be attributable to some person who could/can be held liable, indeed you would not have wanted to sign your pamphlet with a known name in the days of the french revolution, the public domain was the most illegal place to put a pamphlet in. These are roots of The Law here, no matter what it is in the US or elsewhere, no offence intended, and software authors are probably better of if they take greate care of what the relevant legal practice implies. In particular, "entirely free of ... restrictions" is a sentence that makes sense provided at least that the potential meanings of "copyright restriction" have been sorted out; this may be the case in US courts, good. But no such clarity over here, books about software rights are only slowly creeping onto bookdealers shelves. A case: What if a German (say) author derives software from a piece of software that has been placed in the public domain in the USA? Will he/she aquire local responsibilities with the software he/she uses? (THIS IS NOT, NOT EVEN BY IMPLICATION, LEGAL ADVICE :-) - georg