home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:8151 alt.suit.att-bsdi:746
- Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!spool.mu.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!basset.utah.edu!hollaar
- From: hollaar%basset.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar)
- Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.suit.att-bsdi
- Subject: Re: BSDI lawsuit
- Keywords: copyright, notice
- Message-ID: <1992Dec29.113154.3583@hellgate.utah.edu>
- Date: 29 Dec 92 18:31:53 GMT
- References: <1992Dec28.141701.25015@crd.ge.com> <1ho25nINNm7n@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <1ho55fINN731@ftp.UU.NET> <1992Dec29.063742.22155@hellgate.utah.edu> <bhayden.725648522@teal>
- Distribution: inet
- Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
- Lines: 23
-
- In article <bhayden.725648522@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:
- >hollaar%basset.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) writes:
- >>Not quite so simple. It depends on two facts -- when was the code first
- >>fixed in a tangible medium and whether the code was published. Publication
- >>generally means sale or other transfer of ownership, rental, lease, or
- >>lending. It would probably not be code licensed with restrictions on
- >>further distribution.
- >> ...
- >>So, if 32V is an unpublished work, it is likely protected either under
- >>state copyright law (if written prior to 1978) or federal law, even if
- >>it has no notice.
- >
- >Again, I think that you are too quick to jump to the conclusion that
- >the work was "unpublished".
-
- Actually, I didn't jump to the any conclusion, but was pointing out that
- just because there was no copyright notice doesn't mean that it isn't
- protected by copyright.
-
- I agree (and stated) that the situation is fact-intensive, depending not
- only on the date of the writing to determine the applicable law but also
- whether its distribution under the license agreement or otherwise
- constituted a publication.
-