Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!shurr
From: shurr@cbnews.ATT.COM (Larry A. Shurr)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Copyright
Message-ID: <13206@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 16 Jan 90 18:25:10 GMT
References: <25b26116:8132.1comp.ibmpc;1@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Reply-To: shurr@cbnews.ATT.COM (Larry A. Shurr,20650,cb,9a110,6148605851)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, OH (actually an AGS consultant)
Lines: 45

In article <25b26116:8132.1comp.ibmpc;1@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>Item 8132 (0 resps) by ir230 at sdcc6.ucsd.edu on Mon 15 Jan 90 11:28
>>[john wavrik]    Subject: Copyright
>>Regarding copyrights I've heard something bizarre:

>>    Suppose A writes a program which he does not intend to copyright
>>       but instead makes it freely available.

>>    Suppose B takes some or all of A's program, incorporates it in his
>>       work and puts *his* copyright on the whole thing.

>>    The (bizarre) claim is that A no longer has rights to his own program and 
>>       infringes on B's copyright if he either continues to distribute 
>>       his original work or (particularly) if he later decides to use the 
>>       ideas for a commercial product. Similarly any other party who uses A's 
>>       work must obey the condition's of B's copyright even though he got
>>       the ideas from A rather than B.

>Absolutely false.  The fact that University Ingres and other products
>(freely available) exist side-by-side with the commercial versions of same
>bears this out.

(Another example is the X code, which is freely available, but there are
copyrighted, commercial versions, as well).

I believe that this absurd scenario is, indeed, false.  B's work would
be considered a derived work and he would be obligated to credit the
original source - even if it is public domain or freely redistributable -
at least in cases where the borrowings are a substantial part of the
work (i.e., minor borrowings might be excepted).  The status of the 
derived work does not change that of the original.  Furthermore, if B 
fails to properly credit the source of the borrowing, he endangers the 
very validity of his own copyright claim.  Also, if B's additions are 
not a substantive addition to the original work, he may have no copyright 
to begin with.

Now, you may be tempted to flame me if I am wrong or have misstated, but 
please don't, it's still just a waste of time.

regards, Larry
-- 
Signed: Larry A. Shurr (cbema!las@att.ATT.COM or att!cbema!las)
Clever signature, Wonderful wit, Outdo the others, Be a big hit! - Burma Shave
(With apologies to the real thing.  The above represents my views only.)
(You may now R'eply.  Forwarding from cbnews to my mail address now works!!!)