[GRASS5] Re: [Fwd: whinging about GRASS again]

[Mark P. Line]

Paul Kelly said:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Mark P. Line wrote:
>
>> A modern work is only in the public domain if the entity that currently
>> owns the copyright to it places it in the public domain. After that
>> happens, the entity is then the work's *former* copyright owner because
>> it
>> has relinguished copyright protection to the work by placing it in the
>> public domain. This is what CERL was trying to do with its GRASS
>> releases.
>
> Since GRASS was created by the American government at taxpayers expense
> and for the public good of the country, copyright doesn't make sense
> and wasn't claimed by CERL because there is no need for an incentive: it
> was created for the public good and is thus in the public domain.

[IANAL. TINLA.]

Everything that is written down has copyright automatically. CERL placed
GRASS into the public domain by relinguishing that copyright.


> Copyright only applies to computer source code in the sense that it is
> analogous to the text of a book---copy right cannot be applied to a
> binary software program.

Copyright applies to a wide range of works, including software. The *form*
is immaterial (executable file, textfiles containing the source code,
etc.).

If I chisel the text of _Snowcrash_ on the side of a mountain, I will have
infringed on copyright if I don't have permission.

If I translate _Snowcrash_ into Quechua and publish it in Peru, I will
have infringed on copyright if I don't have permission.

If I distribute an executable version of MS-Word, even for free, then I
will have infringed on copyright if I don't have permission.

If I distribute an executable version of GRASS 6, for free or for money,
then I will have infringed on copyright if I don't have permission. But in
this case I'm given that permission by the license agreement, which places
further constraints on the way in which I am permitted to redistribute the
software.

[IANAL. TINLA.]


-- Mark

Mark P. Line
Polymathix
San Antonio, TX