PE> 1. You aren't allowed to take a public domain program and
PE> then attempt to call it your own and stop others from using it.

PE> 2. If you modify a public domain program, you can do whatever
PE> you like with it, but the original is still public domain.

BL> This is not how I read it Paul.

BL> 1.  You cannot assume the rights (especially commercial)
BL> to a program declared as Public Domain. You can use it,
BL> but there are residual rights and limits to that use.

BL> 2.  The author retains inherent rights under ordinary copyright,
BL> even if he gives up those rights to the public domain.

RM> I just spotted a slightly alarming item in New Scientist
RM> 14 January, and dredged back til I found a msg containing
RM> "public domain" so I'd have an excuse to air it... Stuff
RM> in ()brackets is my interpretation/paraphrasing, cos I'm
RM> too lazy to type in the whole article.

But you are comprehensively mangling two completely separate issues.
Patents have absolutely nothing to do with copyright at all. The way
to get around a patent problem is to prove they arent entitled to a
patent they claim they control or that you arent infringing it.
Different matter entirely to how to get a copyright on something by
changing it.

RM> ---
RM> Unisys has announced it will seek license fees for (new) commercial
RM> products that use the GIF format fro processing picture files.
RM> Unisys has revealed that it holds a patent covering any software
RM> which reads or creates GIF files. The patent covers a compression
RM> algorithm (called LZW) that is vital for creating or decoding GIFs.

RM> GIF itself was developed by Compuserve, and released in
RM> 1987. C$erve believed at the time that everything needed
RM> to make GIF's work was public domain,

And thats a real problem with patents, they can bite you on the bum
very easily. A number have been bitten recently, MS with DoubleSpace,
and even more recently a purported patent on CDROM stuff which in
theory gives some rights over all CDROM encyclopedias etc. Remains
to be seen if it really does.

The purported patenting of the Hepatitis C virus is another.

RM> but have recently settled with Unisys for something >$100,000.
RM> A C$erve vice-pres said "None of us knew that Unisys had filed
RM> for, and eventually received, a patent on the LZW scheme."

Yep, thats the problem with patents.

That also bit the modem V42bis standard too, it does too.

RM> He described C$erve as "an unwitting partner to Unisys during
RM> those seven years of encouraging proliferation [of GIFs]".

RM> Unisys has been quick to point out that its action won't
RM> affect users who are simply looking at or transferring GIFs.

Corse thats just their choice on recovery of the license fee.

RM> "We just want to negotiate with software developers", said
RM> its spokesman. (Unisys also said it won't chase freeware/pd
RM> developers, or programs released before "this year" - the
RM> article didn't say what "this year" was, but I assume 1995.)

RM> Companies writing GIF based software for use on C$erve will
RM> now be obliged to pay C$erve (!!??) a 1.5% royalty on sales
RM> of their software.

RM> Some (unspecified) software developers say (they'll move
RM> away from GIF because of this.)

And quite a few have been going on about covering GIFs to
something else to make a rude gesture in the direction of
Unisys and CServe. Bit like the old ARC fiasco which was similar.

RM> ---
RM> The article doesn't say who actually wrote the LZW algorithm.

Writing has nothing to do with whats patented. Even if you write the
code yourself from scratch, if it really does infringe the patent,
thats the finish of the argument. Completely different to a copyright.

--- PQWK202