Re: US Govt Licensing (was licensing)

Tom Adelstein wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Ok, so here is a question I have wondered about for some time.
>> Is the following true.  Anyone has the right to copy, modify and
>> republish the SW using either a proprietary or Free license.  So,
>> you could copy the program. modify it in some relatively straightforward
>> way, and release the result under the GPL.  How extensive would
>> the modification have to be?  Would simply reformatting it with
>> some different formatting conventions be sufficient, or would
>> one have to really add significant value.  The first probably is
>> not sufficient, but adding some functionality might be possible.
>
>
> Theoretically, it's part of the public domain. All expired copyrights 
> become part of the public domain. Does that mean you can republish 
> them and make money on them? Do you have the right to chance Ralph 
> Waldo Emerson's writings and call them your own?
>
> I don't know the answer to that question. 

IANAL, but below is what I understand.

You can redistribute and so forth (like Project Gutenberg), but you 
still have to credit the original author. In fact, you may want to look 
at what http://www.gutenberg.org does.
You *shouldn't* be able to call them your own. I don't know the legalese 
on this, but... I suppose one could take the credit from Ralph Waldo 
Emerson, but if you did you'd be the laughing stock of the literary-minded.

However, software is a functional work. Let's say I take a Bubble Sort, 
which is pretty much public domain. If I *modified* it for my purposes 
and copyrighted, that would be fine. It's not a 'derivative work' 
because I derived it from the public domain.

If the Bubble Sort were GPL'd and I modified it, it would be a 
derivative work. Because it's a derivative work of a GPL'd piece of 
code, I could put my copyright on it. As long as it's a GPL, and I 
mention where the original work came from. This works with all other OSI 
approved licenses.

If the Bubble Sort were just plain Copyrighted, I would have to request 
permission from the original author (or the present copyright holder) 
for me to do the derivative work - and this normally includes a 
licensing fee. Once I have the permission, I can create the derivative 
work and copyright it with the understanding that it *is* a derivative 
work, and that if I don't honor my agreement with the original copyright 
holder, my derivative work is suspect (exactly the same as the GPL'd 
work, without the fee).


And to give this all some perspective - that's how it supposedly works 
in the U.S....It may vary in other countries.

>>
>> For that matter, could Someone simply grab the sources and slap
>> a GPL notice on them.  Then the GPL'd sources would be copyright
>> Someone, though it would belong to the US Government.  The
>> resulting tangle of copyright and ownership might be just enough
>> to put anyone off of trying to take it private again.
>
>
> That seems to depend on if someone could take it private.
>
> Again, in theorey it belongs to the American people as in "We, the 
> People". 

If it's in the public domain, it's not just for Americans. It's for the 
whole world. Countries are not islands when it comes to the public domain.

Taran