The different between GPL and non-license

[Rod Dixon]

The only way I know to accomplish what the website you cited claims can be
done is to abstain from enforcing your copyrights. Doing so, however, is
not the same as the public domain. The public domain status of a work
operates as a matter of law. The copyright owner does not have a *choice*
as to whether to put/transfer/cede a work to the public domain. Although
the effect may be the same, it is quite a different transaction to donate
a work to the Federal government and, thereby, achieve public domain
status of the work. Under that scenario, the copyright owner actually
transfers all exclusive rights to the Federal government (not the public
domain). And, as a result, the operation of law, changes the status of the
work from a work subject to copyright protection to one that is not. 

We must be careful in how we characterize copyright transactions because
the implications are wide-ranging and far-reaching as you can see in the
DVD/DeCSS and Napster litigation.
Rod


On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 kmself at ix.netcom.com wrote:

> To the best of my knowledge, this is grossly incorrect.  There is
> nothing within the US copyright statute which prevents an author or
> copyrightholder from ceding rights to a work.  One of many corroborating
> references: http://www.benedict.com/basic/public/public.htm.  A Google
> or other online search will produce many others.
> 
> Please provide a legal citation or reference supporting your claims.
> 
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 04:27:48AM -0500, Nelson Rush wrote:
> > It is actually impossible for individuals to release anything to the public
> > domain themselves. Public Domain can only be invoked after a copyright has
> > expired. Releasing software to the public domain is a myth and only causes
> > legal confusion when attempted.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: kmself at ix.netcom.com [mailto:kmself at ix.netcom.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 12:09 PM
> > To: Diskusi Lisensi
> > Subject: Re: The different between GPL and non-license
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 12:37:29PM +0700, Kristiono Setyadi wrote:
> > > I want to ask about the different between GPL with non-license.
> > > I think that GPL and non-license is the same.
> > > Both of them are distribute to anyone.
> > > Is my opinion true or false?
> > > Thank you.
> > 
> > If you mean the distinction between the GNU GPL and public domain, no
> > they aren't the same.
> > 
> > Any license in which copyright is retained reserves rights to the
> > author.  Placing a work in the public domain releases virtually all
> > rights of authorship (excepting possibly "moral rights" depending on
> > jurisdiction).
> > 
> > The GPL allows broad lattitude in use of code, but imposes restrictions.
> > There are few if any restrictions on use of public domain works.
> 
> -- 
> Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>     http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
>  Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.                    http://www.opensales.org
>   What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?   Debian GNU/Linux rocks!
>    http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/    K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org
> GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0
>