-=> andrew clarke wrote to William McBrine <=-

 ac> OK, but the issue here is that there isn't any clean way to mix PD code
 ac> with existing GPLed code in the same source files without resorting to
 ac> either creating diffs or rewriting the code entirely.

They don't have to be separated at all -- you can just release the whole
thing under the GPL. That's what I've been saying. You can freely
incorporate PD code into any body of code under any license. You don't even
have to indicate which bits were originally PD. The nature of PD is that
there are NO controls on it; no requirements at all.

If _you want_ to be scrupulous about maintaining separation, you are of 
course free to do so; but there's no _legal_ need to do so.

Anyway, I don't quite understand why this would be an issue -- weren't you
_already_ incorporating PD code with code that was copyrighted and
distributed under a specific license? Maybe I need to look at the package
to grasp this.

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

 ac> ...

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

The material you quoted above talks about the case where no notice is
present, but says nothing about the case where a notice IS present,
actively disclaiming copyright. However, I see that subject is touched on
later in the full text:

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

Thanks for the link.

To me, it seems commonsensical that as the copyright belongs to an author,
it is his to abandon, if he chooses. Of course, I realize that the law
often doesn't follow common sense. But this is the first time I've ever
seen it seriously suggested that the author might not have that right. It's
a shocking notion, and it'll take me a while to digest.

I suppose it's one more reason to retain copyright, but choose a license
like the BSDL or the GPL, rather than releasing to PD.

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

I am a huge fan of the GPL, for exactly that reason. :-) The GPL keeps my
code free. The BSD license, by contrast, is basically glorified PD +
credit... so anyone can use the code in any way, as long as they give
proper credit. While both licenses may have their places, the BSD license
can often be a giveaway to parasites who won't free their derived code in
turn. And of course that goes double for PD code, which doesn't even
require credit.

... "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so."
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.44