🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <12344@pur-ee.UUCP> hankd@pur-ee.UUCP (Hank Dietz) writes:
>
>Anyway, here's what I think we will be doing:  a pure PD release with a
>credit/modification history which must be maintained, but which carries no
>further rights.  In other words, people would be free to sell modified
>versions of our software...  but they must acknowledge the lineage of their
>product in some way.  I'm not quite sure of the details...  but it shouldn't
>be anything that would frighten away any potential users.  And that's what
>this is all about.

A Pure PD release would not guarantee that all derivatives or the
modified versions carry the credit/modification history.  In fact,
the only thing it DOES guarantee is that the *original* is ALWAYS
PD, and it cannot, in any way, be restricted, as *everyone* has
equal rights to the original.

I have no comment on Copyleft. I do not use copyleft, and try to avoid
anything copylefted. 

I believe what you probably need is something "QUASI-PD" like released
BSD stuff, which grants all rights (as in PD) *except* the right (!)
to misrepresent the software in any way, and the right to remove the
authorship notice.  See Berkeley "Released" sources for a copyright
that is probably quite close to what you want.

For example:

| 
| Copyright (c) 2000 Midnight-Oil Ltd.
| All rights reserved.
| 
| redistribution and use for any purpose whatsoever in source   and
| binary  forms are permitted provided that the above copyright no-
| tice and this paragraph are retained  in  all  documentation  and
| source  materials, blah blah blah ...
|

oz
-- 
They are like the Zen students who,	   Usenet:    oz@nexus.yorku.ca
when the master points at the moon,        ......!uunet!utai!yunexus!oz
continue to stare at his finger....        Bitnet: oz@[yulibra|yuyetti]
			P. da Silva        Phonet: +1 416 736-5257x3976