Re: Building An Apple ][ Software Archive

["Arkain" <rwking@usa.nospam.net>]

"Roy and/or Janet Miller" <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
39D425B5.ECA67205@inetnebr.com">news:39D425B5.ECA67205@inetnebr.com...
> Jumping back in...
>
> Arkain wrote:
>
> > You and Paul seem to be having so much fun doing research on these terms
> > that I dare not deprive you of your fun. The truth is actually 1/2 way
> > between the 2 of you.
>
> Ah, but Paul and Frank are at least quoting "authorities", your
definitions seem
> to have no greater authority than that of your own opinion, and, as we
here all
> know, there are plenty of others with differing opinions.

Seeing as how they don't agree on which "authority" to use... I simply
decided to insert a definition that fits all known occurances(personal
observation) of either term. Whether or not they fit is a job I leave to
them.

> >
> >
> > Public Domain Software:
> > This is software that is not copyrighted by anyone.
>
> More than that. Public domain means there are NO rights of any kind held
by any
> individual (please remember that under law a corporation IS an individual)
or
> group of individuals in reference to a work. Not just the right to copy.

You are correct. I only mentioned the copyright since this is the point
where Frank & Paul differed.

> > Any previously existing
> > copyrights on such software have been released by the owner. Anyone is
free
> > to redistribute or even "embrace & extend" (classic M$ tactics) such
works.
> >
> > Freeware:
> > Freeware refers to software for which the redistribution rights have
been
> > released to the public domain.
>
> I don't believe that is correct. No rights have been released or
surrendered,
> merely not asserted. The difference (splitting hairs perhaps)

Not really splitting hairs. In a legal sense, you have to be nit-picky about
the wording.

> is that such
> rights COULD be reasserted in the future. Such as if "Superwriter" is now
> freeware, and someone edits the product and claims to be the author, or
some one
> steals routines from it, and the copyright owner gets upset, they (I
think, I'm
> sure if I'm wrong someone will correct me) could revoked the freeware
status.

You are correct. My wording was too loose for what I meant.

> > There is no guarantee that the work is also
> > uncopyrighted. More often than not, the work is copyrighted and is as
such,
> > NOT entirely public domain. This is not to say that there are no
> > uncopyrighted freeware works.
>
> If it is uncopyrighted, then it's public domain. Not uncopyrighted
freeware.
> Simply public domain. By combining the terms a confusion arises that is
not
> helpful.

My point was that "uncopyrighted freeware" **IS** public domain software.
It's not even possible to acquire a copyright for such software. If you
release software to the public before copyrighting it, you've surrenderred
the right to copyright it.

Arkain