Fri 2003-01-31 07:19, William McBrine (1:106/2000) wrote to andrew clarke:

 ac> No, artistic works can't be copyrighted once they enter the public
 ac> domain.

WM> Material in the public domain of course remains in the public
WM> domain. But since there is no copyright, it can be freely
WM> incorporated into a larger work, with that work as a whole being
WM> copyrighted (under any terms). In other words, code that's public
WM> domain is never in conflict with any software license.

OK, but the issue here is that there isn't any clean way to mix PD code
with existing GPLed code in the same source files without resorting to
either creating diffs or rewriting the code entirely.  One of the Husky
developers, Tobias Ernst, has since e-mailed Scott Dudley about a licence
change for just the MSGAPI code.  Maybe there will be a positive response.

 ac> Also, lately I've been lead to believe that effectively the only way
 ac> artistic works can lawfully enter the "public domain" is
by the author
 ac> dying and the copyright expiring after N years, ie. attaching "Written
 ac> by Andrew Clarke and released to the public domain" to a document has
 ac> no legal meaning, and I still have legal control over the copyright
 ac> until I die, then there is a grace period (for the family of the
 ac> author).

WM> How have you been led to believe that?

It started off with a conversation in FTSC_PUBLIC about the licencing of
the FTSC documents.  Some have "public domain" status, but
whether ot not this actually means anything in some countries may depends
who you ask.  Since then I've done a little research, eg.

"Prior to the 1976 Act, a user always knew the copyright status of a
work: if there were the requisite notice, then copyright was claimed in the
work, and any otherwise infringing copying required permission from the
copyright owner. [FN91] If, on the other hand, there were no copyright
notice on a publicly distributed copy, then the work was in the public
domain, free for any use.

...

With the elimination of the notice requirement under the Berne Convention
Implementation Act, the uncertainty of copyright status has been removed,
except this time in favor of the copyright owner and to the detriment of
the copyright user. After 1989, don't bother asking if copyright exists in
a work: it does.

...

In any event, the elimination of formalities under the copyright law has
protected against the unintentional forfeiture of copyright in works, but
raised questions about how works should get into the public domain in the
unusual cases where that result is intended. I have suggested a cautious
and protective approach to the abandonment of such rights, consistent with
the new regime that has eliminated formalities; but the law in this newly
ambiguous area will probably have to be developed on a case-by-case
basis."

- http://www.nyls.edu/samuels/copyright/beyond/articles/public.html

So according to Edward Samuels in 1993, copyright law in the US regarding
deliberate copyright forfeiture is vague at best.  The situation is likely
to be similar here in Australia.

 ac> Then any program that statically links the GPLed MSGAPI would need to
 ac> be GPL'd also, AFAIK.

WM> Sounds good to me. :-)

I'm not a huge fan of the GPL for that reason.

-- mail{at}ozzmosis.com

--- timEd/Cygwin 1.11.a4