Re: Copyrighted code

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:

> Matt Kruse wrote:

>> 1) You don't have permission to use the code from the url you posted. It's
>> copyrighted. All code is. You cannot copy it and use it.
>
> IBTD.

I guess there was an "unless otherwise stated by the author" missing
for the statement to be generally true. I don't know if there is a
statment by the author in this case.

> I do not think it was Richard's intention that these approaches of his do
> not spread, but instead that nobody used the text of the example without
> his permission (however, it is up to him to clarify this). What is an
> example good for if it is not allowed to serve as such?

Inspiration, perhaps.

There is a big difference between using a script written by someoen
else and using an idea from it, since ideas cannot be copyrighted
(although it will be interesting to follow the Dan Brown trial).

> I, for one, publish the code I use on my Web site and post here for the
> public domain, unless specified different (and I expect everybody else to
> do so, CMIIW).

While I can use that statement as argument for my being allowed to use
your code, using other people's code without a similar statement from
them leaves you open to copyright infringement lawsuits.

> What I resent and despise only, are people who use (my)
> code (even in modified form) without mentioning the original author, making
> it seem as if the whole thing was their idea, and people trying to make
> money with it without the original author's explicit permission (and I
> expect everybody else here to share that attitude, CMIIW).

But releasing into the public domain has a specific meaning, that you
relinquish your rights to the work, as granted to you by copyright
law.

> Furthermore, Copyright is AFAIK only a concept of U.S. American legislation;
> however, this is an internationally distributed newsgroup, and a globally
> available Web site is probably not only subject to the legislation of one
> country, too.

Copyright is the English word for a concept that exists in most
legislations. The international Berne Convention, that most countries
have ratified, requires local copyright law to give certain rights
and priveleges. That is why different countries' copyright laws are
mostly compatible.

> And AIUI, Copyright is something that was introduced with
> printed material; there is still a gray area here in legislation regarding
> electronic media.

Legally, I don't think the gray area is that big. It's just that it
doesn't always make a lot of sense to people with technical
understanding :)

> So it is bordering to incorrect to say that one cannot
> copy it and use it because of (U.S. American) Copyright.

No, but you cannot use it without author permission in a country
that signed the Berne Convention.

> For example, EU law, including the legislation of the Federal
> Republic of Germany (I happen to live there), knows only author's
> rights which do not require registration or any disclaimer of the
> author to become active. (IANAL)

US copyright doesn't require that either (since 1989, when they
adopted the Berne Convention). Merely creating and publishing a
work will grant the author the protections of copyright law.

> It all boils down to the question whether concepts and algorithms can and
> should be copyrighted, or even patented. I say no; the drawbacks of that
> for the many are too many.

Agree on both. Copyright covers concrete works, not ideas. Patents
covers only physically implementable ideas. The current duration of
copyright protection is also far too long for copyrighted software
to be useful when it expires, contrary to the goals set forth in
the US constitution for introducing copyright in the first place.

/L

-- 
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen  -  lrn@hotpop.com
 DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
  'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'