On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 06:55:21PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 03:03:53PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote: > > > > Thus, copyright in the real world only matters if the author chooses to > > exercise it. > > Since copywrite exists unless released within a licence, who would want > to open themselves (or their company) to the risk of a legal battle, or > tarnishing of a reputation. >
I can't believe I'm jumping into this but... ISTM, that this is an interesting scenario: you release code anonymously into public domain. companyA sees that code, likes it, grabs it, incorporates it, copyrights and distributes it in a closed source application. this of course is their right as there are no licenses or rights attached to the code. simultaneously, userB sees it, grabs it, incorporates it, and releases it under gpl. later, companyA, having lost track of how it got the code, sees it in userB's gpl code and sues userB claiming that they stole it, violated companyA's copyright. userB ends up in court trying to defend themselves. If there is no other record available of this code being in public domain, nor any clear release from the author, then userB is effectively screwed. If one had instead released the code with explicit copyright releases attached, then userB could attribute the code properly and be defendable. it seems irresponsible to just throw code out there with the idea that anybody could use it without making some statement to that effect. this all assumes the existence of automatic copyright etc. Without automatic copyright, I suppose the situation would be pretty similar though. my .02 as IANAA or coder at this point. /me runs and hides A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
