dn> specific cases. As for BT/EE, its author does in fact share code with
 dn> Vince Perriello and is on the BinkleyTerm beta team, so presumably they
 dn> came to some amicable arrangement.

He originally didn't want to, so I hear.

 >> dn> The FSF's GPL means that you allow free distribution while
 >> dn> preventing others from claiming ownership as can be the case with
 >> dn> true 'public domain' code.

 >> Not sure what you mean there.  Whether it's public domain or
 >> GNU, anyone can modify the header to say "it's mine!" and
 >> attempt to sue me.

 dn> ??  No, not in either case. You can't sue for using and claiming ownership
 dn> of public domain code - you can neither retrospectively remove the 'public
 dn> domain' status of a published work, nor can you claim copyright for any
 dn> work unless under specific agreement from the original copyright owner -
 dn> you can never claim title from 'thin air'; it has to come from somewhere.
 dn> Someone doing that in either case (with GNU it would be in breach of GPL,
 dn> with PD code it would be plain stupid) is completely insane.

Well you've just contradicted your paragraph above, haven't you?  You
misunderstood what I meant (bad choice of words on my part).  What I meant
was, anyone can attempt to remove the copyright notice illegally (as they
did with Nhan's code).  They could also illegally remove my PD notice and
attempt to sue me.  Actually the removing of the PD notice and putting
their own copyright notice in should be OK (right?), so long as they don't
try to sue anyone for using the original PD code.

 dn> If you find a piece of PD code you can use it or distribute it however you
 dn> like, but nothing allows you to claim copyright on it.

 dn> Didn't we resolve this previously?  I recall having this exact same
 dn> conversation around a year or two ago right here.

Similar, anyway.  BFN.

Paul

--- GoldED/2 2.42.G1114