PE>>>> Well that's not what I want my code to be.  I want the
 PE>>>> version I wrote to be Public Domain, but I want people to
 PE>>>> be able to use and modify the code in their own programs,
 PE>>>> and gain copyright over the DERIVED WORK (ie if they change
 PE>>>> 1 byte it's theirs, even if that one byte/line is the
 PE>>>> "released to the public domain" line).  I
want them to be
 PE>>>> able to sell the derived work as part of a commercial
 PE>>>> package where source code is released too, e.g. TCXL (for
 PE>>>> want of a better name).  BFN.

 SP>>> Then you should include an explicit copyright license to say
 SP>>> that that is what the code is being licensed for (you don't
 SP>>> have to use the word 'copyright' if you don't want to).

 PE>> You don't see a problem with this?

 SP> No, should I?

 SP> As far as I see it, if you own the copyright then you are free to issue
 SP> whatever licence you wish to issue, including and unconditional free
 SP> licence to use the work in any way whatsoever.

The problem I am referring to, is that I don't think the
"license" I can give, can actually say "you *own* your own
copy", as opposed to "you may do whatever you like with your own
copy".  Because that would mean they have copyright over something
they didn't write.  This may or may not be possible.  If it is possible,
then surely Public Domain carries the same status?  BFN.

Paul

--- GoldED/2 2.42.G1114