Re: Building An Apple ][ Software Archive

[Paul Guertin <pg@sff.net>]

"Arkain" <rwking@usa.nospam.net> wrote:

> "Paul Guertin" <pg@sff.net> wrote:
> > As GPLed software is under copyright, it is not in the public domain.
> 
> Technically, the work covered by the GPL is merely freeware since it
> has a copyright. The catch is that the GPL places the work *PERMANENTLY*
> in a status equivalent to public domain, barring the right to "embrace
> & extend" of course.

First, you cannot put something in the public domain temporarily, so
your all-caps adjective there is redundant. Second, the status of
GPLed software is not at all equivalent to public domain software (for
one, you don't have to supply the source to public domain software to
anyone who asks for it). 

> I've kept the meaning of the terms in tact... mostly. If you consider the
> "copyleft" something that's not a copyright (as the FSF does) then GPL works
> are indeed PD since they don't have a copyright in that sense.

No, they are not. The GNU "copyleft" is a copyright, it says so
right there on the GNU site I mentioned earlier in this thread.

> I know that this argument is suspect. That is why I don't and won't use the
> GPL for the majority of my "free" works.

Your argument is not suspect, it is wrong. Putting your software under
the GPL does not put it in the public domain.

Paul Guertin
pg@sff.net