>> The notion of being "published" means at least these two things: 1) > > Where exactly - URL? - is that notion defined?
I'm giving you the most sensible definition, from the point of view of a Doctor of Law. I have not seen a real definition, so I'm giving you one. > Especially the intention is IMHO not necessary - just the fact if it > happened (and I don't think we want to discuss legal stuff about "X > broke into my home, stole and published my work" - the patent world has > the same problem). No, you must have the intention. If you have a copy of your new book on your computer, but someone steals it and prints it -- it is not a "published" work. And there is no URL. You can take my word for it, along with my credentials, or you can ignore it. >> So, is code a *published* item? Most of the public can't read it. > > I cannot read (or understand) neither Russian nor Chinese nor almost any > natural (let alone dead) languages of the world. I'm pretty sure that > I'm not the only one;-) > Does that make Russian literature non-public? I don't think so ... You confuse the issue. My definition included "intended for the public". But it isn't clear that open source code is intended for the public -- it is intended for those who code or wish to. Past your inflammatory remarks, I withdraw any further commentary. Mark Janssen, JD
