Copyright & License Questions

[David Johnson]

On Thursday 21 June 2001 09:28 am, TARuiz at aol.com wrote:

> 1)  I've read that one should copyright their work and from there choose an
> Open Source license. Isn't copyrighting, though, against the concept of
> Open Source?

Any software you create is automatically copyrighted by you. In order to 
abandon this copyright (place it into the public domain) you must go through 
incredible legal contortions. It's just not worth it, and there is even 
debate as to whether it's even possible. Keep it copyrighted.

If it were practical to place your works into the public domain, you are 
opening yourself up to lawsuits. No one now owns the work, yet you are still 
the author. Someone can sue you for damages through misuse of the software 
(never abandon any property that could cause damage, no matter how remote the 
chance). By keeping a copyright on it, you can ensure that a warranty 
disclaimer follows the software. (personal opinion: if it's commercial 
software, you really should offer a warranty with it, but only to paying 
customers. The disclaimer would still be in effect for those not purchasing 
the software directly from you)

Morally, the open source world has a bit of disagreement over the question of 
software ownership. The FSF has an article on why software should not be 
owned. Right next to an article that says software should be copyrighted and 
placed under a copyleft license. It makes sense if you use the right colored 
glasses :-)

If you wish to really place your work in the public domain, so the next best 
thing. Use the BSD or MIT license instead. The only thing they require is to 
keep the copyright and warranty disclaimers intact.

-- 
David Johnson
___________________
http://www.usermode.org