Re: (c) in OO software modeling language

Robert Cumbow <cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> wrote:
>
> Stephen J. Hyland <shyland[_at_]computer-lawyer.com> wrote:
> >
> > My UML documentation says:
> >
> > "The UML is nonproprietary and open to all." 3.3 UML Summary,
> > version 1.0
> >
> > ... That they say it is nonproprietary and open to all seems to grant
> > a nonexclusive, unrestricted license to use to the public. ... That
> > you can freely use these components does not mean they are in the
> > public domain since I can see no way under U.S. law to "declaim"
> > authorship (and therefore copyright), it simply means that it is
> > freely licensed.
>
> I beg to differ. While the phrase "open to all" might seem to grant a
> nonexclusive, unrestricted license to the public, the use of the term
> "nonproprietary" changes the picture. You can't license something to
> others unless you own it. The word "nonproprietary" says to me that
> no proprietary rights are claimed. Copyright is by definition a
> proprietary right. By disavowing any proprietary rights, the authors
> have stated a clear intention to place their work in the public domain.

I thought about that, Bob, and then I went back and looked at the copyright statute and all of the treatises I had on hand, including Nimmer. For the life of me, I can't find a way to place something into the public domain anymore.

In a way, I agree with you, and I think the authors indended this to go into the public domain. But while I found lots of support for ways to claim authorship and copyright, I find nothing in the 1976 statute that supports disclaiming copyright (i.e., putting something into public domain.)

And so, until proved otherwise, I stand by my above conclusion. Anyone else have an opinion?

Stephen J. Hyland
<shyland[_at_]computer-lawyer.com> Received on Fri May 30 1997 - 15:33:58 GMT