Hello,

I ported the RackCtls components (http://www.picsoft.de/compon.htm basically since I used the 7 segment display one in the past, but the other controls could be useful too) to Lazarus.

However the license seems a bit contradictory to me, this is what the source says:

"Diese Komponenten sind Public Domain, das Urheberrecht liegt aber beim Autor."

google translate says "these components are public domain but the copyright lies with the author".

I contacted the author (twice) to ask if I could publish my adaptation but he didn't reply.
I think that I can do whatever I want with "public domain" software but the "the copyright lies with the author" clause confuses me. Do you think I should go ahead and publish them or should I keep them to myself?

Bye

In Germany, "public domain" does not exist. One *can not* give up the copyright. But one can allow unrestricted use.

Florian Klaempfl wrote

Luca Olivetti schrieb:

[...]

> > "Diese Komponenten sind Public Domain, das Urheberrecht liegt aber beim > Autor."

[...]

In Germany, "public domain" does not exist. One *can not* give up the copyright. But one can allow unrestricted use.

So what would you think reading that license?

Florian Klaempfl wrote

Luca Olivetti schrieb:

[...]

> > "Diese Komponenten sind Public Domain, das Urheberrecht liegt aber beim > Autor."

[...]

In Germany, "public domain" does not exist. One *can not* give up the copyright. But one can allow unrestricted use.

So what would you think reading that license?

You must ask the author to public it under a license that fits better.

Mattias

While I think it is crazy that Germany does not allow one to waive ones copyright - that is their decision as a sovereign state. However, nobody who isn't a citizen of that state can be bound by their laws - so no doubt there must be some way that Germany deals with things from outsiders that are public domain. The logical answer is to use the exact same structure they use for copyrights that have expired. Germany is bound by the Bern convention so
they are required to let copyright expire and go into the public domain eventually. Even if they prevent Germans for placing their work there prematurely, they cannot prevent
foreigners from doing so, so logically the effect inside Germany should be the same.
The only other viable way of dealing with it would be to assume that the author granted you an implicit copyright license which grants ALL the rights that copyright would have
restricted. This would have the same practical result as the first option - but be much more legally cumbersome and illogical (of course, I won't put anything past politicians).

Either way, Germany cannot dictate to foreigners the terms under which they may make their works available unless they made public domain publishing so illegal as
to ban the import of public domain works from countries that allow it
- something I seriously doubt.

Now please note, I am not a lawyer, just a copyright reform activist with a pretty clear idea of most copyright systems and what the Bern convention requires - I don't know how Germany specifically deals with foreign public domain but if I had to make an educated guess I would say you are likely in the clear. However, I would suggest you check with somebody more knowledgeable about German copyright law specifically before acting on this suggestion - whatever system they use to deal with it, you should know the terms under which you can act before acting.

Ciao
A.J.

PS. I am assuming the original publisher IS in fact a foreigner ? PPS. Your components are under copyright law a derivative work. It is a known fact here that the author of the original work had intended you (among other things to have the right to create such derivatives, and distribute them (otherwise the public domain placing makes no sense) - so while there may be some specifically German red-tape that YOU have to deal with - the essential concept here is completely ok.

As I said before: one cannot drop the copyright in Germany (actually "Urheberrecht", correct translation would be probaly "creator right") because one did the work and nobody else, it's an absolut right which cannot be transfered except by inheritance.

But one can allow unrestricted use which is practically the same as public domain.

You must ask the author to public it under a license that fits better.

Did you read that the author did not respond to mail?

beim Autor."

> [...] > > > > In Germany, "public domain" does not exist. One *can not* give up the

copyright. But one can allow unrestricted use.

> So what would you think reading that license? You must ask the author to public it under a license that fits better.

The problem is that the author doesn't reply to my emails :-( Maybe I could just publish a patch or just publish it to draw his attention (I obviously took care of leaving the original copyright notice in place).

@A.J. Venter: the original author is (supposedly) german, I'm an italian living in spain

Bye

I think it's pretty clear that you can publish the modifications. There is no such requirement that in order for you to publish a modifyed work the author must give up his copyright.

Take any GPL software for example. It is copyrighted and licensed, but you are allowed to redistribute modifyed copies, because the license allows so, and so does "public domain" allow.

Bad luck.
Without explicit permission you can't be sure, so use it on your own risk.

Mattias

Florian et. all.

I understand better now - and I think you have it wrong. You are confusing copyright with creator right. They are not the same thing in fact though often implemented via some of the same laws. Creator right cannot be waived in any country - all it requires however is that the author be credited. Alice in Wonderland for example, is public domain, you can republish it, create a sequel etc. etc.
but you cannot claim to have written it.

In the same way, this public domain work allows you to publish a modified version, you cannot claim to have written the original - and must credit the author of the original - the same way that a sequel to Alice in Wonderland would have to contain a notice that you are using characters from a book by Lewis Carol.

Basically, you can publish - no problem, no risk - the author already gave you permission - just be sure to credit the original author.

Ciao
A.J.

To me the text is totally clear. I do this from the perspective of Dutch law, but afaik most countries continental European law is not that different, since they all are signatories of the Bern convention.

Before that, let's first define PD, PD is where the

The first part grants a license with rights comparable to works with expired copyright (the PD, also in Germany afaik, one just can't "put" it there).

The second part can mean two things:
- (the more likely one) He grants a non-exclusive license. IOW he can still do with the source as he pleases. So, the author is not limited by the license (though that wouldn't be that bad in practice)
- He doesn't waive "Persoonlijksrecht" (personal rights), which are fairly limited rights like "being able to be named the author of the work". These rights are pretty much inalienable anyway, but naming them can sometimes make litigation easier.

In the context of continental law, this is pretty much more liberal than a BSD license. The BSD license explicit limits misrepresenting the source, this license is only bound by the law sets. (and its loopholes)

Marco van de Voort escribi?:

Ok, I finally published it, I hope that the author notices and contacts me.

http://wiki.freepascal.org/RackCtls
http://ventoso.org/luca/rackctls/

Bye