Re: Golgotha source release: crack.com closing down!

[Michael Maher <mike@redhat.com>]

> > I think as soon as someone makes modifications to it, she can
> > effectively choose any license for her version/branch/derivation/...
> > without affecting the original sources and other derivations from the
> > original.
> 
> Public domain means that the owners give up all claim to the copyright.
> It would be perfectly legal for me to take all the code they release,
> change nothing, and then re-release it under the GPL.

That is not true.  A good example would be Borland's Turbo Vision. 
It's 'Public Domain' with stipulations.  You can build against it, and
distribute binaries only.  You can distribute source, but not theirs.
It's stupid. 

Then there is Qt.  You can build and distribute source, but if you make a
game using Qt and try to sell it, you are breaking the license.  While
things claim to be 'free' or 'public domain' You really have to read the
fine print in the copyright in order to stay out of trouble.  The best bet
would be to build against things that are GPL only.  Using anything else
and you might be asking for trouble or wasting alot of time. 

People that at first distribute something for free, and then see it
actually being used sometimes decide to change their license.  Fauhoffer
comes to mind.  Their source was free, you could distribute l3 and
distribute encoders and decoders.  Then they changed it to just decoders..
then they changed it to nothing.  Now they want to make mp4 and have a
very constrictive license.  Anyone that invested alot of time and energy
in the technology might hang themselves. 

> Public domain status cannot be revoked. The original authors could

This is not true.  I site the Frauhauffer stuff as an example. 

> take the public domain code and release it again under a different
> license, just like anyone else can. However, there will always be a
> copy of that public domain code out there for someone else to take.

yes... take illegally.

> It's just a matter of referencing. If you release the code under the
> GPL, and someone else mentioned that they downloaded your copy and

Just b/c you make a GPL porgram doesn't mean it's really GPL.  Look at
RHIDE, the C compiler.  While all his code is GPL and everything he did is
GPL, b.c he built it against restrictive libraries he's screwed. 

> changed it, then their work would also be GPL'ed. If someone else only
> referred to the public domain code as a prior work, even though the
> public domain code and the GPL code are identical, then the code based
> on (referring to) the public domain code could be release under any
> license.

huh?

> Public domain will not lock up all versions of code so that they
> cannot be GPL'ed. But, it will allow people to branch off versions

past versions of GPL'd code can be used.. but if it's public domain well,
I don't know.. it's best to refer to the license. 

> that are not Open Source. For those who are religious about Open
> Source (TM), this is a bad thing. But realistically it will not hinder
> development of any GPL code.

Contrair monfrair .. it could very well directly affect your code.
Well the distribution rights of it anyway.  Just because mpg123 is GPL,
doesn't mean that it really is.  It's against the license for us to ship
mpg123 simply b/c of the mp3 license change.  If you used an mp3 decoder
in your game for example back when it was GPL, and since the license
changed you can technically no longer ship your game without breaking that
license.  This is why building things against crap like Qt suck.  While
it's a good tool kit, it's restrictive. 

-michael maher