Re: what's the killer app for GNU/Linux systems?
Douglas Tutty wrote:
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 03:03:53PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
Thus, copyright in the real world only matters if the author chooses to
Since copywrite exists unless released within a licence, who would want
to open themselves (or their company) to the risk of a legal battle, or
tarnishing of a reputation.
Their view of the real risks are skewed then. Ask any company who's put
GPL'ed code inside a product and gotten away with it because no one
could tell it was there. You naive enough to think that hasn't, and
isn't happening daily? Do those people give a whit about the license or
the Copyright? Nope. Do they just have a copy of the code. Yep.
You (as copyright holder) have to prove they're using your code. (Re:
SCO.) You can't prove it, then what good did your automatic Copyright
do for you? Absolutely nothing.
By your definition, you could have hit reply with quoting turned on in
your MUA to my code example I sent -- and then you would have been a law
No. The forums are clearly stated on the web-site (not just assumed by
the culture) that they and anything posted to them are public. This
releases the rest of us from liability if we redistribute your code.
Where? What forum? This is a mailing list you can sign up for without
ever seeing a web page.
I could start sprinkling code into my signature line and then sue
everyone who quotes it on a mailing list? Yeah, right. It'd actually
be fun to see someone try that and see how far it got in the legal system.
You obviously don't agree with automatic copyright. However, to change
it you would have to change international law.
I have no beef with automatic Copyright, I just claim it's useless. Can
you find any case law where automatic Copyright has been invoked?
Try releasing something into public and then trying to regain your
Copyright in a couple of years if it gets wildly popular just because
you changed your mind. Won't happen. Most Judges just aren't that stupid.