Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ames!elroy!jato!jbrown From: jbrown@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Jordan Brown) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Status report on PKWare Message-ID: <379@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> Date: 20 Oct 88 06:33:02 GMT References: <362@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> <1121@lakesys.UUCP> Reply-To: jbrown@jato.UUCP (Jordan Brown) Organization: Me? Organized? Lines: 26 In article <1121@lakesys.UUCP> mikes@lakesys.UUCP (Mike Shawaluk) writes: >In article <362@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> jbrown@jato.UUCP (Jordan Brown) writes: >>Possession of source code does not mean that you have the rights to >>resell software based on that source code. The copyright still applies. >I agree with you technically; however, Phil's intent on supplying the >aforementioned source code fragments (note that it wouldn't be a complete >program, but just the structures, key subroutines and the like) would be >expressly for use in creating programs on other systems by independent 3rd >parties... I was responding to a comment that said that PK did not want to release the source to his program (the complete thing) because then he would be like SEA, beating up on people for "using" the supplied code. I was attempting to say that it is perfectly possible to release source code while retaining all rights to the code. If somebody "uses" this code by selling derivative works, then they are violating your copyright and you have every right to sue them. (I do not know, nor will I guess, about whether or not this was true in the SEA-PK case.) The source code is provided to allow users to modify and port the program; doing so does not relieve them of their legal obligations to the author. What constitutes a copyright violation in this case is hard to say. Clearly copying the majority of the code is, and duplicating single non-unusual lines is not. This is a matter for copyright lawyers; I suspect that it's fully understood in the ordinary printed-matter copyright world.