The different between GPL and non-license

[kmself at ix.netcom.com]

On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 09:52:26AM -0400, Rod Dixon wrote:
> 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.

> 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. 

I have a hard time believing this.  If all else fails, I believe there
are doctrines under contract law -- estoppal, possibly -- which act as a
bar from granting broad rights to something at one point in time then
reversing yourself later.  I claim no authority in this area --
contracts are a part of law I really haven't studied closely.  

This has been raised several times WRT the question of the FSF
arbitrarily proprietizing its copyrights or revising the GPL to the
extent it would no longer meet the definition of a copyleft.  Because
the FSF has represented these works as being freely available for all
time, changing the terms would raise options for challenge under
contract law.

Granted, this moves the discussion from copyrights to contracts.  I
don't believe this is even necessary, but it does present other avenues.

> 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. 

Though the US Federal Government cannot secure copyright in its *own*
works, it can own copyright in works *transferred* to it.  The transfer
you describe above would require the same act of "abandonment" you say
is impossible in the private sector or state/local governments.

> 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

Actually, no, I don't see.  What are you pointing at? 

-- 
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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20000810/1b64defe/attachment.sig>