"Smith, Todd" wrote:
>
>
> >From: Daniel L. Johnson, MD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >It's not possible to copyright government documents: you can't GPL
> >the gov't code or put any other license on it; you copyright your
> >own additions and modifications, and place whatever licensing
> >restrictions you wish on your own production. And if you write
> >a clone of VISTA that does not re-use any of the code, you can
> >write whatever licensing restrictions your little heart desires.
>
> I am not certain that I understand this completely. It seems that I can get
> the Hardhats snapshot from their site, change a few minor things and
> re-release it as GPL. I know that other commercial companies have done this
> with standard closed-sources licenses. Perhaps I am missing the point?
Ummm... Maybe it's the others who don't understand. They can't acquire
copyright of someone else's work by adding to it, and any licensing
restrictions they put on the derived work are so much hot air (or ink);
they will never be able to challenge anyone's work. Their own *additions
and modifications* they can copyright and license, but if they are not
clear about who owns copyright of what portions, my guess is that they
risk losing rights on their work to the holder of the original work
(in the case of VISTA, the citizens of the USA).]
A person can *say* anything they want, when publishing, regarding
copyright and licensing; defending it in court... ah, that's
another matter. I've seen a lot of strong opinions regarding what
can/can't should/shouldn't be done with copyright and licensing,
none from qualified attorneys and most of it
unadulterated idiosyncratic opinion.
(This not legal advice; I am not an attorney.)
Danl Johnson
