To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"Public Domain" has a very specific and well-known meaning, and that is that there is no copyright and you may do whatever you like with the work, including slapping your own copyright on it (filing of the serial numbers, so to speak, and reselling it as original).
GPL does most emphatically *not* put code in to the public domain.
WRT the original objection, I don't think the Public is likely to be confused with Public Domain very often because (1) most people just use the acronym, and (2) the word License implies that the work is not public domain.
"Public Domain" has a very specific and well-known meaning, and that is that there is no copyright and you may do whatever you like with the work
Yes I guess thats right, so the GPL takes a slightly different twist on public domain in order to specifically to avoid things like the example you gave below;
including slapping your own copyright on it (filing of the serial numbers, so to speak, and reselling it as original).







Member since:
2005-07-11
The name "General Public License" would seem to suggest "Public Domain", which GPL definitely is not.
What straw man are you attacking? Not that I claim to be an expert on the GPL, but I think it's terms do a decent job of keeping control of code and other resources in the public domain.
Just what do you think public domain means anyway?