[CLUE-Talk] Copyright of SCO source code

[Jef Barnhart]

To make it look legit. Give them more publicity. You know, "Even bad
publicity is good." 

Looking at some of the posts on Linux Today. Yea these are opinions.
Suggest that the courts look favorably on registering the copyright. But
even still, I think that the linux community can show that they have
documentation about the history of the kernel. Who put what when and
where. 

Jef

On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 23:29, Dennis J Perkins wrote:
> 
> Timothy C. Klein wrote:
> 
> >* Dennis J Perkins (djperkins at americanisp.net) wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>If my understanding of copyright law is correct, copyrighting the source 
> >>code means that there is a copy at the copyright office.  Is that 
> >>viewable by the public, even if it can't be copied in most cases?
> >>
> >>If Linux source code is published before SCO's source, who holds the 
> >>copyright for identical parts?  The Linux code was publicly available 
> >>first.  Trade secrets don't enjoy the protection of copyright law.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >I must admit my ignorance here, but this is how I understand it.
> >
> >I don't beleive you have to register a copy with the gov. if you
> >copyright anymore.  I think you may have been advised to at one point.
> >
> >But even if they did, it would be the binary that is copyrighted, and
> >the source code would simpy be kept as a trade secret.  Either way, SCO
> >will not have given a copy of their code to the US Gov.
> >
> >IMNSHO opinion, US copyright law has really fallen on its face when it
> >comes to binary code.
> >
> >Tim
> >--
> >======================================================
> >== Timothy Klein || teece at silver_NO-UCE_klein.net   ==
> >== ------------------------------------------------ ==
> >== "Hello, World" 17 Errors, 31 Warnings...         ==
> >======================================================
> >_______________________________________________
> >CLUE-Talk mailing list
> >Post messages to: CLUE-Talk at clue.denver.co.us
> >Unsubscribe or manage your options: http://clue.denver.co.us/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
> >  
> >
> You're right. I had forgotten that it's not necessary to register 
> anymore.  In that case, why did SCO make such noise about registering 
> its source code?  They said it was a jurisdictional pre-requisite to 
> enforcement of its Unix copyrights.  Are they going to claim their code 
> is registered and Linux is not?  But if Linux has been copyrighted for 
> years simply because it was already published, but SCO's was not, does 
> this give Linux primacy in court?  And if it is not necessary to 
> register it, what exactly did they do?  Did they actually do anything? 
>  If they did not publish their source, then it should be regarded as a 
> trade secret with no protection under copyright law.  I don't know how 
> NDAs affect this.
>   
> 
> A friend of mine says that binary code should not be protected by 
> copyright because it is not readable.  In his opinion, binary code 
> should be regarded more like a trade secret unless the source code is 
> also provided.  It's an interesting viewpoint.
> 
> >  
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CLUE-Talk mailing list
> Post messages to: CLUE-Talk at clue.denver.co.us
> Unsubscribe or manage your options: http://clue.denver.co.us/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
>