10 Aug
2004
10 Aug
'04
10:34 a.m.
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Fred Cisin wrote:
I am not so sure about that, Fred. Consider the case of the
shareware author who has 'withdrawn his product from shareware',
(someone likened it 'unringing the bell') declined to accept
further registrations, or provide support for the product, yet
made no active effort to remove it from general availability.
Has he not essentially abandoned his rights to any control over
usage of the product? The law has a principle Laches which
implies that if you wait too long to defend your rights you have
essentially lost them. There is also the principal of Estoppel
which is essentially 'you waited too long, quit your bitching'!
- don
I don't
agree with the last part of your statement. To most people
Public Domain equates to free. "Public domain" means the "public"
owns it legally but it's still free in that anyone can use it for
free.
Yes, "public domain" (relinquishment of copyright ownership) is free.
But free is not necessarily public domain. There do exist some
things that are copyrighted, but available to the public for free.
Consider Richard Stallman. None of his stuff is public domain.
He retains copyright on it so that he can make restrictions on it.
Consider Shareware. Every shareware author who understands
the laws retains copyright. One major reason is that there
have been numerous cases of others hijacking the revenue stream!
Sometimes it is a case where somebody makes enhancements, and
then directs the donations/fees/payments to themselves -
consider S.E.A v Phil Katz.
Other times, there have been people who have done nothing more
than change the splash screen to redirect the money. --
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com