Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!public!valentin From: valentin@public.BTR.COM (Valentin Pepelea) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: Information on Amiga Technical Reference Seri Message-ID: <3098@public.BTR.COM> Date: 18 Jun 91 04:01:20 GMT References: <3036@public.BTR.COM> <22380@cbmvax.commodore.com> <3068@public.BTR.COM> <22472@cbmvax.commodore.com> Organization: BTR Communications, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 38 In article <22472@cbmvax.commodore.com> andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) writes: > >>To my knowledge, only AT&T refuses to publish (copyright) their software. > >You are confusing publishing software and publishing source. >Software can be copyright without publishing source. > >>decent fee. ($100?) That constitutes publication. You will then be granted >>the protection of the law. > >You can have copyright protection by publishing a binary, Valentin. >And we do. This reply is totally irrelevant. We were talking about source code only. And publication of binaries does not constitute publication of source code, particularly when time limitations are to be taken into account. Our discussion has been limited to whether publishing the source code is a good idea. So far we have been given only the following reasons against it: 1. The copyright laws do not adequately protect you. 2. Imbeciles might do imbecile things. Any other bright arguments? In my opinion, the only reason that a company might have to not publish source code is that it does not want to give other people the opportunity to learn for studying the Amiga operating system. I'm not talking copying, since no individual would be stupid to plagiarize, but rather to learn from other people's mistakes and prevent any reoccurences. Valentin -- "An operating system without virtual memory Name: Valentin Pepelea is an operating system without virtue." Phone: (408) 985-1700 Usenet: mips!btr!valentin - Ancient Inca Proverb Internet: valentin@btr.com