Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!news.tele.dk!feed118.news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!news2.euro.net!feeder.news-service.com!nf14.news-service.com!not-for-mail From: "A.D. Fundum" Message-ID: Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.beta,comp.os.os2.programmer.misc Subject: Re: Is JFS really open source? References: <8e20324727b7786109da00dbd8d65060@remailer.paranoici.org> User-Agent: ProNews/2 V1.60.cp125 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@news-service.com Organization: News-Service.com Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 04:16:52 +0200 Lines: 47 NNTP-Posting-Host: 84.53.88.202 (84.53.88.202) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 04:16:52 +0200 Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.os.os2.misc:281 comp.os.os2.beta:137 comp.os.os2.programmer.misc:202 > then it falls under the default copyright, not public domain Now I do understand the Berne-part. If there ever was something that doesn't exist, it's international law. Despite the matching "experts" on tv... :-o Anyway, didn't I use quotes there, surrounding my as-if "public domain"? Whatever that domain may be. If I forgot the quotes: excuse me, it's as (c) as the well-known song Happy Birthday. WIth a somehow relevant, public domain-related. resource, albeit it again is aimed at the US: http://www.unhappybirthday.com. There's a huge difference between (c) and GPL. It isn't the same at all. I can remove the GPL from a package, due to its language indeed. A.o. What's remains, for everybody, are the regular (c) laws and rules. But, IIRC, this started with something being GPLed (and Mensys). Not something being (c). You may respect a GPL, you must respect (c). Nevertheless it isn't the same. In the end a GPL always is bogus. Or bogusable, at least. Unlike (c). So a thing called a GPL, we're talking about, shouldn't be a problem. GPLed, CURSed, JINXed, whatever. Only the (c) really, really counts. And if it's GPLed for you, in English, it's not GPLed for me. So what's the problem? I did mention that Mensys has more obligations than a private person, but that's because the're considered to be professionals. But that doesn't mean a translated (removing language issues) GPL is suddenly valid. They just cannot just claim they didn't know, assuming they did receive an original package with some file called LICENSE in it. I'm not going to join a thread-drift towards (c)-related issues. Nor am I going to address an issue of equal rights. I simplytadded that such a GPL is bogus. Not to mentioned a third-party one (as in "Anything written using Microsoft's (tm) NOTEPAD.EXE ((c) 1980) should be compliant with Microsoft's (tm) additional, strange conditions and terms."). Hence thinking about a GPLed status possibly is a waist of time, perhaps delaying (you and) developments without any need. One may, of course, respect such a GPL, but one must respect (c). BTW, albeit nobody questioned it: I know Mensys used my software for their website-related payment system, and they paid me (with a gift) without having such an obligation. So I guess they may respect a GPL, even if they don't have to. Unfortunately their gift contained loads of software, so I'm still trying to find out who/what owns each file... Is unhappygift.com still available? :-) --