[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

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

- Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 16:19:08 PST
- From:
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

    >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.

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

    If Xerox ever does assert its right to royalties, and desires to
    commercially distribute the LambdaMOO server, they would have to get
    permission from Stephen White (unless Pavel knows with assurance that all
    of the originally transmitted code has been replaced).  Although they still
    have full copyright and other rights in the LambdaMOO server for Pavel's
    work, unless there was some sort of release signed, they wouldn't have
    distribution rights.  It might be that he gave the code to Pavel to develop
    with the understanding the results would be publicly available (clearly
    implied), but *not* with an OK to be selling it or charging royalties.  So
    I'd say to Stephen if he actually reads this list, "Don't give away your
    copyright or make your work public domain! We may want you to beat Xerox
    with that stick sometime in the future.

    Also, just because the work has been distributed, doesn't diminish the
    copyright.  Xerox may, under law, stop distributing for free the LambdaMOO
    server at any time.  I'm sure that their game plan in such things is to
    wait and see if there's any commercial potential sufficient to recoup the
    expenses of a commercial release.  So far no, but potentially yes.  But
    that's what labs like PARC are about.  Let'm play and see if they come up
    with something commercially viable.

    By the way, there were many useful comments in that Nov. 93 discussion
    though there were a lot of postings with incorrect statements of copyright
    law, too.  There were also some very well informed posts following up my
    posting <http://www.ucet.ufl.edu/writing/mail-archives/moo-cows/4269.html>
    asking for LambdaCore copyright/license clarification on 8/29/96
    <http://www.ucet.ufl.edu/writing/mail-archives/moo-cows/>, though no
    LambdaMOO wizards chose to respond to that.  Ah well....

    Eric
     ________________________________________________________________
       Eric Mercer <mercere@netcom.ca>  phone and fax (404) 685-0918
       DU Services, Manager             http://www.du.org/duSvcs
       Diversity University, Inc.       http://www.du.org
     ----------------------------------------------------------------
    =  DU is a non-profit company that develops, disseminates, and   =
    =  provides training in educational internet tools, emphasizing  =
    =  interactive, multiuser, virtual reality worlds for schools.   =
     ----------------------------------------------------------------

Follow-Ups:

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

- From: "Robert J. Brown" <rj@eli.wariat.org>

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

- From: Pavel Curtis <Pavel@placeware.com>

- Prev: Re: anyone ever gotten xerox to clarify the MOO license before?
- Next: Re: anyone ever gotten xerox to clarify the MOO license before?
- Index: MOO-cows
- Thread: MOO-cows

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index