Re: Building An Apple ][ Software Archive

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

"Paul Schlyter" <pausch@saafNOSPAM.se> wrote in message
news:8r6o3c$3i3$1@merope.saaf.se...
> In article <stchaaivelgmcd@corp.supernews.com>,
> Arkain <rwking@usa.nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > Yes. Remember that freeware is simply software that has a public
> > distribution policy(i.e. anyone can distribute without paying the
author).
>
> I see you're using "my" definition of the word "freeware".  But if we
> used that "other" definition, where "freeware" must be copyrighted,
> would GPL be freeware according to that definition too?  It's obvious
> that GPL software is free, but is it also copyrighted?

Yes. The "copyleft" is just an awkward type of copyright. They both serve
the same purpose... to reserve certain rights from the general public. A
copyright reserves the right to reproduce and/or modify while a "copyleft"
reserves the right to "embrace & extend" at a cost.

> > The copyright called GPL goes 1 step further and uses "the public" as
it's
> > copyright holding entity. This way all materials under the GPL are
always
> > free to use as literally everybody owns it. The GPL enforces public
domain
> > status.
>
> No it doesn't, since GPL explicitly forbids you to try and sell the
> software as your own, while being Public Domain allows this.  Thus,
> "enforcing public domain status" would go agains the spirit of GPL.
>

This is what I mean by "enforcing public domain status". The GPL ensures
that all copies or derivatives of the GPL covered work remain in the public
domain. If that doesn't qualify as "enforcing public domain status" then
what does? Uncopyrighted freeware's public domain status isn't normally
protected. This is why a PD work can be claimed by anyone.

Arkain