On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforw...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's not entirely correct. If he *publishes* his code (I'm using > this term "publish" technically to mean "put forth in a way where > anyone of the general public can or is encouraged to view"), then he > is *tacitly* giving up protections that secrecy (or *not* disclosing > it) would *automatically* grant. The only preserved right is > authorship after that. So it can be re-distributed freely, if > authorship is preserved. The only issue after that is "fair use" and > that includes running the program (not merely copying the source).
(Digression follows.) That was true back in the late 1800s in the US, but was not true in England at that time, and was solved in a unification of copyright laws and treaties. There was a huge issue over the copyright of the opera "HMS Pinafore" (by Gilbert and Sullivan - one of my other loves), and according to US law at the time, the publication (in this case, public performance, along with the public sale of libretti (books of the words) and some sheet music) of the work voided the authors' claim to ownership. There was no recourse against the myriad knock-off Pinafores. When the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company produced their subsequent operas, they tried a variety of techniques to secure international copyright, with limited (in many cases VERY limited) success. It wasn't till the late 20th century that the US finally signed into the international agreements that mean that we can depend on copyright protection world-wide. But we can, now. And the protection is still there even once something has been published. In fact, copyright protection still applies to works that don't have a "Copyright <year> <owner>" citation, though it's harder to prove then, and the lawyers would have fun with it. It's safe to assume that anything you find on the internet *is* subject to copyright, unless you have good reason to believe otherwise. Came across a nice little history of copyright here: http://www.edwardsamuels.com/illustratedstory/isc10.htm Or if you're curious about how copyright applied to the works of Gilbert and Sullivan, join Savoynet - http://savoynet.oakapplepress.com/ - and ask. There are plenty of experts around. In any case, that's all ancient history now. Unless someone can cite a jurisdiction that still maintains that publication relinquishes all rights of ownership, I would assume that things remain in copyright. ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
