I have improved a code that is public domain (it has no copyright). Is it possible to make my improved version GPL. Is it useful.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 03:26:20PM -0800, Francois Willot cacou661@yahoo.com wrote:
I have improved a code that is public domain (it has no copyright). Is it possible to make my improved version GPL. Is it useful.
It is possible. Please see [1], [2] and [3].
[1] GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses -- Public Domain. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
[2] What does it mean to say that two licenses are compatible? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible
[3] What does it mean to say a license is "compatible with the GPL"? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean
Regards, Volker
> I have improved a code that is public domain (it has no > copyright). Is it possible to make my improved version GPL. Is > it useful.
It is possible
Only if one considers a work that lacks a copyright header something that is in the public domain, which I belive is not the case. Sadly, I can't find any sources that prove or disprove this; maybe some copyright law person can comment on this.
Cheerio.
On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 01:48, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Only if one considers a work that lacks a copyright header something that is in the public domain, which I belive is not the case.
Well, certainly work that is PD would not have a copyright header, because it wouldn't be in the public domain if it was copyrighted. However, a copyrighted work doesn't have to have a copyright header. So, you definitely cannot say a work without a copyright header is public domain.
(There is some dispute over whether or not it is possible to renounce your copyright and put a work into the public domain; it varies by your region. Works whose copyright have expired are definitely PD, but that is unlikely to cover any computer code ;)
Cheers,
Alex.
Only if one considers a work that lacks a copyright header something that is in the public domain, which I belive is not the case.
Well, certainly work that is PD would not have a copyright header, because it wouldn't be in the public domain if it was copyrighted. However, a copyrighted work doesn't have to have a copyright header.
I thought that PD works must have a header that notes that it is in the public domain. Which is more or less a copyright header, since PD still falls under the laws of copyright law. But oh well..
Cheers.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 02:48:02AM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt ams@kemisten.nu wrote:
> I have improved a code that is public domain (it has no > copyright). Is it possible to make my improved version GPL. Is > it useful.It is possible
Only if one considers a work that lacks a copyright header something that is in the public domain, which I belive is not the case.
He claimed that it is public domain.
Regards, Volker
> > I have improved a code that is public domain (it has no > > copyright). Is it possible to make my improved version > > GPL. Is it useful. > > It is possible > > Only if one considers a work that lacks a copyright header > something that is in the public domain, which I belive is not > the case.
He claimed that it is public domain.
He claimed that it was PD based on the lack of a copyright header, Alex Hudson noted that just because it lacks a copyright header doesn't mean that it is PD.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 01:09:42PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt ams@kemisten.nu wrote:
> > I have improved a code that is public domain (it has no > > copyright). Is it possible to make my improved version > > GPL. Is it useful. > > It is possible > > Only if one considers a work that lacks a copyright header > something that is in the public domain, which I belive is not > the case.He claimed that it is public domain.
He claimed that it was PD based on the lack of a copyright header, Alex Hudson noted that just because it lacks a copyright header doesn't mean that it is PD.
if this is the case, the "public domain" category description on
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#PublicDomainSoftware
might be wrong, because it suggests that code without a copyright is public domain.
I'm interest in how someone can be certain, wether code without a copyright header is public domain or not? Does anybody know this?
Regards Volker
On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 12:39, Volker Dormeyer wrote:
if this is the case, the "public domain" category description on
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#PublicDomainSoftware
might be wrong, because it suggests that code without a copyright is public domain.
No, that description is correct, PD software isn't copyrighted. What I was saying was that software without a copyright notice may not be public domain: you don't *have* to put a notice on things you author, so if you wrote a piece of software tomorrow and didn't put a copyright notice on it, you would still have copyright on it and it wouldn't be public domain.
I'm interest in how someone can be certain, wether code without a copyright header is public domain or not? Does anybody know this?
You can't be certain, that's why it's recommended to put a notice on the software.
I'm fairly sure that in the UK you can't just mark a piece of software as "public domain", although taking that action would probably mean that you would find it extremely difficult to enforce your copyright at a later point. In the UK, moral rights are not attached to software either, whereas on the continent they are - and I'm told you cannot rescind those rights either, so again you wouldn't be able to say a piece of software is public domain.
Public domain is [usually] specifically those things that were copyrighted, but the copyright has now expired on (e.g., books in Project Gutenburg). It's highly likely, therefore, that the software isn't public domain in a true sense.
If the source code doesn't have a copyright notice, the best suggestion is to leave the source alone - unless you can establish whose it is, and get a license for it, you're probably just storing up trouble for later.
Cheers,
Alex.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 12:59:08PM +0000, Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 12:39, Volker Dormeyer wrote:
if this is the case, the "public domain" category description on
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#PublicDomainSoftware
might be wrong, because it suggests that code without a copyright is public domain.
No, that description is correct, PD software isn't copyrighted. What I was saying was that software without a copyright notice may not be public domain: you don't *have* to put a notice on things you author, so if you wrote a piece of software tomorrow and didn't put a copyright notice on it, you would still have copyright on it and it wouldn't be public domain.
I'm interest in how someone can be certain, wether code without a copyright header is public domain or not? Does anybody know this?
You can't be certain, that's why it's recommended to put a notice on the software.
thanks.
I'm fairly sure that in the UK you can't just mark a piece of software as "public domain", although taking that action would probably mean that you would find it extremely difficult to enforce your copyright at a later point. In the UK, moral rights are not attached to software either, whereas on the continent they are - and I'm told you cannot rescind those rights either, so again you wouldn't be able to say a piece of software is public domain.
Hmm, up to now I was pretty sure, that someone can transfer the copyright to someone else or completely renounce on it. And if the copyright is renounced, it then should be public domain in my opinion.
I agree, that this is not possible on the european continent, it's called "Urheberrecht" here in Germany.
Regards Volker
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:09:42 +0100 (MET) "Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@kemisten.nu wrote:
> > I have improved a code that is public domain (it has no > > copyright). Is it possible to make my improved version > > GPL. Is it useful. > > It is possible > > Only if one considers a work that lacks a copyright header > something that is in the public domain, which I belive is not > the case.He claimed that it is public domain.
He claimed that it was PD based on the lack of a copyright header, Alex Hudson noted that just because it lacks a copyright header doesn't mean that it is PD.
No, he did not. He claimed that "it has no copyright". That can mean a number of things(including that the author renounced his copyright in some way) and you are over-assuming.
greets, Wim
He claimed that it was PD based on the lack of a copyright header, Alex Hudson noted that just because it lacks a copyright header doesn't mean that it is PD.
No, he did not. He claimed that "it has no copyright". That can mean a number of things(including that the author renounced his copyright in some way) and you are over-assuming.
I didn't over-assume anything. One can read the OP's sentence in several ways, one way is reading the content of the parens as "since it has no copyright header". The OP didn't state how he knows that the code is in PD; nor has he actually stated how he knows this. So _everyone_ in this thread are assuming things, including you.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:26:30 +0100 (MET) "Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@kemisten.nu wrote:
He claimed that it was PD based on the lack of a copyright header, Alex Hudson noted that just because it lacks a copyright header doesn't mean that it is PD.
No, he did not. He claimed that "it has no copyright". That can mean a number of things(including that the author renounced his copyright in some way) and you are over-assuming.
I didn't over-assume anything. One can read the OP's sentence in several ways, one way is reading the content of the parens as "since it has no copyright header". The OP didn't state how he knows that the code is in PD; nor has he actually stated how he knows this. So _everyone_ in this thread are assuming things, including you.
Hi,
You are mistaking, I'm not saying what he meant. I'm just saying it's unfair to just go and assume that he means there is simply no copyright header. If you don't find this to be an over-assumption, then okay, but _I_ didn't assume that that was or was not the reason. And although I replied to your message in particular, I am referring to the entire thread being pretty pointless since nobody bothered to ask how exactly he knew it was without copyright.
BTW, your reply is in direct contradiction with your original message.
greets, Wim