Copyleft/guide
6
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Merge 'refs/merge-requests/4' of gitorious.org:gpl-compliance-tools/tutorial

Browse source 
into my local branch gitorious-merge-requests/004.

Fontana told me on IRC just now:
   I hereby release them under CC0. I will assign to FSF if desired.

We briefly discussed whether Red Hat (Fontana's employer) might hold
copyright, and Fontana said:
   Red Hat is hereby CC0ing it

Later he said this:
   I have concluded that Red Hat holds copyright here, but I have authority
   to declare my patches an Excluded Activity and thus Red Hat does not hold
   copyright.
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2014-03-19 13:18:01 -04:00
commit cab83981f8
1 changed files with 23 additions and 15 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

38
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -377,11 +377,10 @@ effectively no longer restricted by copyright law. Software not restricted by
\subsection{Public Domain Software}
Theoretically, an author can create public domain software by disclaiming all
copyright interest on the work. In the USA and other countries that have
signed the Berne convention on copyright, software is copyrighted
automatically by the author when she ``fixes the software into a tangible
medium.'' In the software world, this usually means typing the source code
In the USA and other countries that
are parties to the Berne convention on copyright, software is copyrighted
automatically by the author when she fixes the software in a tangible
medium. In the software world, this usually means typing the source code
of the software into a file.
Imagine if authors could truly disclaim those default control of copyright
@ -391,20 +390,22 @@ restrictions on software (i.e., prohibition of copying, modification, and
redistribution), removing the software from the copyright system usually
yields software freedom for its users.
Carefully note that software in the public domain is \emph{not} licensed
in any way. It is nonsensical to say software is ``licensed for the
Carefully note that software truly in the public domain is \emph{not} licensed
in any way. It is confusing to say software is ``licensed for the
public domain,'' or any phrase that implies the copyright holder gave
expressed permission to take actions governed by copyright law.
express permission to take actions governed by copyright law.
By contrast, the copyright holders instead renounced copyright controls on
Copyright holders who state that they are releasing their code into
the public domain are effectively renouncing copyright controls on
the work. The law gave the copyright holder exclusive controls over the
work, and they chose to waive those controls. Software in the public domain
is absent copyright and absent a license. The software freedoms discussed in
work, and they chose to waive those controls. Software that is, in
this sense, in the public domain
is conceptualized by the developer as having no copyright and thus no license. The software freedoms discussed in
Section~\ref{Free Software Definition} are all granted because there is no
legal system in play to take them away.
Admittedly, a discussion of public domain software is an oversimplified
example. First, disclaimer of copyright is actually difficult in practice.
example.
Because copyright controls are usually automatically granted and because, in
some jurisdictions, some copyright controls cannot be waived (See
Section~\ref{non-usa-copyright} for further discussion), many copyright
@ -416,10 +417,17 @@ simply purchased on the installment plan rather than in whole. Thus, we must
assume no works of software will fall into the public domain merely due to
the passage of time.
The best example of software known to be in the public domain is software
that is published exclusively produced by the USA government. Under
Nevertheless, under US law it is likely that the typical
disclaimers of copyright or public domain dedications we see in the
Free Software world would be interpreted by courts as copyright
abandonment, leading to a situation in which the user effectively receives a
maximum grant of copyright freedoms, similar to a maximally-permissive
Free Software license.
The best example of software known to truly be in the public domain is software
that is published by the US government. Under
\href{http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/105}{17 USC 101 \S~105}, all
works published by the USA Government are not copyrightable.
works published by the USA Government are not copyrightable in the US.
\subsection{Why Copyright Free Software?}