[CLUE-Talk] Copyright of SCO source code

[Dennis J Perkins]

> * Kirk Rafferty (kirk at fpcc.net) wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 09:12:47PM -0600, Timothy C. Klein wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > I don't know about binaries, but I'm pretty sure it's the source that needs
> > to be copyrighted.  If the source was only a trade secret, it would not be
> > legally protected if leaked.
> > 
> > I seem to remember something about only the first N lines needing to be
> > submitted to the copyright office.  N being like the first 50 or so.  Since
> > those are most likely comment lines that tell us this is all copyrighted
> > code (ooh, self-referencing!), it's doubtful that it would be of any use.
> > 
> > Dang it, now I'm going to have to Google this.
> > 
> > (oh, and IANAL...)
> > 
> > -k
> 
> I think that it *has* to be at least the binary, but probably both.  If
> the binary weren't copyrighted, it would be legal to give out copies,
> and that is obviously not the case.  The source, though kept secret, is
> also copyrighted.  One does not have to publish to maintain copyright on
> something.  I seem to remember there being some provisos about one having
> to claim copyright, and perhaps publish, but the law was changed in one
> of our many recent copyright extenstion acts.
> 
> 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
> 

Interesting argument.  But if you do not publish, what proof do you have for 
copyright?  It seems to me that most companies' use of source code fits the 
definition of trade secret.  The consumer sees the binary program not the 
source.  Compare this to Coke.  The consumer sees the beverage, not the 
formula.  

I don't know how the courts view this, but it looks like a headache.

I could say IANAL, but the opinions of lawyers don't seem very conclusive to me 
either.