comp.os.os2.programmer.misc:2136   
   From: "A.D. Fundum"    
      
    > then it falls under the default copyright, not public domain   
      
   Now I do understand the Berne-part. If there ever was something that    
   doesn't exist, it's international law. Despite the matching "experts"    
   on tv... :-o   
      
   Anyway, didn't I use quotes there, surrounding my as-if "public    
   domain"? Whatever that domain may be. If I forgot the quotes: excuse    
   me, it's as (c) as the well-known song Happy Birthday. WIth a somehow    
   relevant, public domain-related. resource, albeit it again is aimed at   
   the US: http://www.unhappybirthday.com.   
      
   There's a huge difference between (c) and GPL. It isn't the same at    
   all. I can remove the GPL from a package, due to its language indeed.    
   A.o. What's remains, for everybody, are the regular (c) laws and    
   rules. But, IIRC, this started with something being GPLed (and    
   Mensys). Not something being (c). You may respect a GPL, you must    
   respect (c). Nevertheless it isn't the same. In the end a GPL always    
   is bogus. Or bogusable, at least. Unlike (c). So a thing called a GPL,   
   we're talking about, shouldn't be a problem. GPLed, CURSed, JINXed,    
   whatever. Only the (c) really, really counts. And if it's GPLed for    
   you, in English, it's not GPLed for me. So what's the problem?   
      
   I did mention that Mensys has more obligations than a private person,    
   but that's because the're considered to be professionals. But that    
   doesn't mean a translated (removing language issues) GPL is suddenly    
   valid. They just cannot just claim they didn't know, assuming they did   
   receive an original package with some file called LICENSE in it.   
      
   I'm not going to join a thread-drift towards (c)-related issues. Nor    
   am I going to address an issue of equal rights. I simplytadded that    
   such a GPL is bogus. Not to mentioned a third-party one (as in    
   "Anything written using Microsoft's (tm) NOTEPAD.EXE ((c) 1980) should   
   be compliant with Microsoft's (tm) additional, strange conditions and    
   terms."). Hence thinking about a GPLed status possibly is a waist of    
   time, perhaps delaying (you and) developments without any need. One    
   may, of course, respect such a GPL, but one must respect (c).   
      
   BTW, albeit nobody questioned it: I know Mensys used my software for    
   their website-related payment system, and they paid me (with a gift)    
   without having such an obligation. So I guess they may respect a GPL,    
   even if they don't have to. Unfortunately their gift contained loads    
   of software, so I'm still trying to find out who/what owns each    
   file... Is unhappygift.com still available? :-)   
      
      
   --   
      
   --- Internet Rex 2.31   
    * Origin: News-Service.com (1:261/20.999)