Re: Building An Apple ][ Software Archive

[Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>]

Sometimes your posts suggest that your grasp of English isn't as great as it
normally is.

Paul Schlyter wrote:

> In article <39D77F86.634662B@inetnebr.com>,
> Roy and/or Janet Miller  <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote:
> >Paul Guertin wrote:
> >
> >> "Arkain" <rwking@usa.nospam.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The copyright called GPL goes 1 step further [...]
> >> > The GPL enforces public domain status.
> >>
> >> These are mutually exclusive. Something cannot be under copyright
> >> and in the public domain at the same time. As GPLed software is
> >> under copyright, it is not in the public domain.
> >>
> >> Unlike the word "freeware", the terms "copyright" and "public domain"
> >> have a precise legal meaning. Don't use them loosely.
> >
> >Thank you Paul. An important point.
> >
> >So then, the term "freeware" if it  is going to have any real meaning
> >must be distinguished from "public domain". If by freeware, all that is
> >meant is that it is software that doesn't cost you anything, then we need
> >*another* term to distinguish "public domain freeware" from "copyrighted
> >freeware."
>
> We already have such a term: public domain.  If a piece of freeware
> isn't public domain, it must be copyrighted somehow.

If it's public domain, it isn't freeware.

>
>
> Adding "freeware" after "public domain" is a tautology, since public
> domain software always is free to use.

Why are you complaining about my using a term that you used in an earlier post?
The point, that you obviously missed is that only by your convoluted use of the
term do you have such a tautology, which really isn't a tautology. In case you
haven't noticed Paul, you can go down to your closest book store and pay good
money for books that are in the public domain. And anyone who wished could
start selling public domain software. In fact, many already have.

>
>
> >But, as others have shown, that's what "freeware" was supposed
> >to do, distinguish between public domain on one hand, and copyrighted
> >software that isn't commercial, and isn't shareware on the other hand.
>
> It's weird that the term "freeware" wasn't supposed to distinguish software
> which is free of charge from software which costs money to use legally....

Sigh. I'd always heard that Swedes really like to argue, now I can see why
their neighbors thought so.

Since public domain isn't copyrighted, it can be free to obtain. Since
copyrighted software is normally shareware or commercial, it isn't free. So
what do we call copyrighted software that is free for the asking??? Hmmm??
Perhaps "Freeware"? Hmm? A term that fits a category of software that needs a
label. Or perhaps you could care to coin a new terse term? Something other than
one that sounds like something created in Brussels?

Roy

Roy

>
>
> >Roy
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Paul Guertin
> >> pg@sff.net
> >
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
> Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
> e-mail:  pausch at saaf dot se   or    paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
> WWW:     http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch    http://welcome.to/pausch