MOO-cows Mailing List Archive


Re: anyone ever gotten xerox to clarify the MOO license before?

>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Mercer <> writes:

    >> It would seem to me that since the MOO code is a derivitive
    >> work based on a previous work by Stephen White, aka ghond, that
    >> if he were to GPL the original work, then that would solve the
    >> whole problem for once and for all: Xerox would either have to
    >> make MOO fall under the terms of the GPL, or not distribute
    >> MOO.  But it is too late for them to not distribute MOO, since
    >> that has already been done.

    Eric> Uh, sorry, but there are several misunderstandings of the
    Eric> law in here.  Although Mr. White can release his own work
    Eric> into the public domain, that has no effect on the
    Eric> copyrightable modifications and extensions added by Pavel
    Eric> Curtis (a Xerox employee).  Of course, it'd clear up some
    Eric> ambiguity if he *did* make a public statement to that
    Eric> effect, but then again, I suggest that perhaps he shouldn't,
    Eric> for some, uh, interesting reasons.

I realize that under the terms of the Berne Convention, Mr. White has
no obligation to put any copyright notice on his work at all.  It is
copyrighted unless that right is explicitly given up.  

My suggestion regarding the GPL had to to with the condition in the
GPL that derivitive works inherit the same terms as the original work,
not that they weren't copyrightable.  This would mean that MOO would
have to be freely available *WITH SOURCES* because it was derived from
an original GPLed work.

--------  "And there came a writing to him from Elijah"  [2Ch 21:12]  --------
Robert Jay Brown III  1 847 705-0424
Elijah Laboratories Inc.;  37 South Greenwood Avenue;  Palatine, IL 60067-6328
-----  M o d e l i n g   t h e   M e t h o d s   o f   t h e   M i n d  ------


Home | Subject Index | Thread Index