[CLUE-Talk] Copyright of SCO source code

[Timothy C. Klein]

* Dennis J Perkins (djperkins at americanisp.net) wrote:
> > 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
> 
> 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  But if you do not publish, what proof do you have for 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.

I agree that lawyer's aren't all that convincing on the issue, either.
And it would seem to make one's case of copyright infringement harder to
prove, on works that are private.  That is why the US Gov. encouraged
sending them a copy, so that it was on file.

It also brings up the point that SCO can look through all of the Linux
code, be we can't do that with SCO code.  SCO, and any proprietary
vendor, can break the law here with little or no chance of being caught.
I bet you a $1 that if we could see all of the SCO code, we could find
some Linux code.  But we don't get to do that.  Unless SCO were
subpoenaed.

Tim
--
======================================================
== Timothy Klein || teece at silver_NO-UCE_klein.net   ==
== ------------------------------------------------ ==
== "Hello, World" 17 Errors, 31 Warnings...         ==
======================================================