Public domain software is not open-source?

[DShofi at atmi.com]

Gents,

This interesting discussion raises the common and, it seems, most 
overlooked risk of open source software, free software and public domain 
software reuse:  Did the author have the rights to grant under the license 
or to assign to the public domain?  I have to agree that the underlying 
public domain work would remain in the public domain even if modified and 
redistributed under an open source license.  Indeed, we all understand 
that the work itself (unmodified) could not be distributed under an open 
source license EVEN by the original author herself where she previously 
and effectively dedicated the copyright to the public domain.  Ya gotta 
have a copyright to grant a copyright license. 

David M. Shofi




"Alexander Terekhov" <alexander.terekhov at gmail.com> 
03/03/2008 01:41 PM

To
lrosen at rosenlaw.com
cc
"License Discuss" <license-discuss at opensource.org>
Subject
Re: Public domain software is not open-source?






On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> 
wrote:
> Alexander,
>
> This copyrighted email is hereby licensed under AFL 3.0. Copying this 
email
> in violation of those license terms is hereby prohibited.

Only the new material (that you own) is licensed under AFL 3.0.
Copying substantial portion of your email quoted below in violation of
those license terms is ...

>
>    Let me not to the marriage of true minds
>    Admit impediments. Love is not love
>    Which alters when it alteration finds,
>    Or bends with the remover to remove:
>    O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
>    That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
>    It is the star to every wandering bark,
>    Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
>    Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
>    Within his bending sickle's compass come:
>    Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
>    But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
>    If this be error and upon me proved,
>    I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

... NOT prohibited. Your copyright license doesn't cover that work
because you don't own that material.

>
> Now, please, can we let this topic rest?

Why are you being so imprecise in formulating what is not allowed by
your copyright license?

>
> /Larry Rosen
> (along with this entirely gratuitous attribution to Shakespeare, who has 
no
> way at all under copyright law to force me to acknowledge him)
>
> P.S. There is a public domain, but this email isn't in it.

THAT HAS NO EFFECT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ON PUBLIC DOMAIN STATUS OF THE
PREEXISTING MATERIAL

Attribution: HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476

regards,
alexander.

--
"12/21/2007 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT...
 01/22/2008 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT...
 02/19/2008 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDAT(sic)...
 02/26/2008 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from
Daniel B. Ravicher...
 02/27/2008 ORDER that Defendants Verizon Communications, Inc. has
until March 14, 2008..."

 -- 1:07-cv-11070-LTS aka Never Beginning "GPL Enforcement" case



*************************************************

This email message may contain information that is confidential and/or 
privileged and is intended only for use of the individual or entity named 
above.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or 
the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, 
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy the 
original message.  Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20080303/4b385537/attachment.html>