Re: RFC: xemacsweb - XEmacs vs. GNU Emacs
Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu writes:
1) Placing code in the public domain means that you can no longer
put
a "hold harmless" clause in as part of the copyright (i.e. you can't say
"by copying this software, you agree to not sue us if it breaks").
There is no such clause in the GPL. There is a a non-warranty
*statement*, not an *agreement*. I see no reason why you couldn't put
such a statement in a public-domain document? (Of course someone
might remove it, but then they are the ones likely to get sued.)
Thus, if you put code in the public domain, you're liable to all
sorts of legal nasties if it causes a problem for somebody.
You are always liable to all sorts of legal nasties. A non-warranty
clause is just a warning, it does not prevent anyone from suing or
even winning. It is just informational - though it is good to include it.
2) Remember that one of Microsoft's first products was a Basic
interpreter,
which was basically just a public domain one that was ripped off and sold
under the Microsoft label.
Yes, there are good reasons for preferring GPL over public domain
(or a looser MIT-style license). I don't see that fear as being
important for *changes* to an existing GPL program, since those
changes would be difficult to "rip off" and use in a different
non-CPL application. (Except perhaps being a new non-trivial
algorithm or implementation thereof.)
I think both of these are good reasons why a corporation would want
to
be *damned* sure it was issuing code under an appropriate open license
rather than allowing it to slide into public domain.
I agree to a large extent. I am just pointing out there are
alternatives to copyright assignment, if people don't want to do that,
especially when it comes to changes to an existing GPL program.
--
--Per Bothner
per(a)bothner.com http://www.bothner.com/~per/