Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 00:22:36 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@GndRsh.aac.dev.com> To: gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu Cc: Shimon@i-Connect.Net, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patches on senderp-ppp.i-connect.net Message-ID: <199709140722.AAA01220@GndRsh.aac.dev.com> In-Reply-To: <19970913200905.31425@hydrogen.nike.efn.org> from John-Mark Gurney at "Sep 13, 97 08:09:05 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Rodney W. Grimes scribbled this message on Sep 13: > > > Hi Y'all, > > > > > > This is just a bit of formality and a reminder: > > > > > > Any progamming logic (source, object, executable, etc.) that you may find > > > on the computer known as sendero-ppp.i-connect.net (206.190.143.100), which > > > does not clearly display a Copyright notice authorizing free distribution > > > is proprietary, unpublished source code of Simon Shapiro, Atlas Telecom or > > > both. > > > > I love the work you are doing, but the above statement is not correct. > > > > a) It is not ``proprietary'' unless you take legal and proper actions > > to keep it as such. In most cases you have done just the opposite, > > you've given pointers to it in a public forum. > > > > b) The action of making it avaliable to anyone other than yourself > > is `publication'', thierfor the code is not ``unpublished''. > > if this is true.. and that simply letting people download load it means > that the copyright is invalid (i.e. it's publicly avail), then why do we > worry about GPL'd code?? it's publicly avail.. but we still have to adhear > to the copyright attached... so why does this apply to his code? My statement b) above says nothing about invalidating the copyright on the file(s). It said that his claim to being ``unpublished source code'' would not hold up in court. Infact no where in my reply do I mention copyright. His base copyright is fully intact and binding, though missing a few technical legal requirements (City and State for a filed US copyright) his assertion of copyright infringement would hold up in a court. His assertion that it is a proprietary, unpublished source code how ever would not. I am not a lawyer, but have and do spend a healthy chunk of money in that area on a regular basis and have some first hand expertise in watching just how a lawyer disects things like the first 8 lines of dpt_pci.h, I am sure Greenly, Rottenberg, Evans and Brag as well as a Black's legal dictionary would back me up on my assertion in b) above. > it also only in theory that published material is free... but case law > has proven otherwise.. this is the basis for all intellectual property > law... I could get get Blacks and spend an hour showing you how many flaws there are in the above 3 statements, but instead let me just make 3 statements back: Published material is not free, unless there are attached conditions to the copyright that are legally valid and true granting you rights beyond what the copyright grants you. Case law is only some % of the picture, you have to see if the actual law as applied in a particular case decision matches the current situation. Intellectual property law has no single basis, and is comprised of both actual written law and the cases tried using those laws (commonly called case law). Infact that should apply to all law as far as I can tell. > > > c) Your ftp server welcome message desen't even head any warnings > > what so ever. > > well. that has been fixed... :) Okay, it has warnings, but those warings are seriously lacking in there legal correctness :-(. Folks don't try to write protection mechanisms yourself unless you have a good understanding and first hand experience with the applicable law. I don't see anything in the login banner I couldn't get a good lawyer to destroy in a few minutes. The word copyright doesn't even appear, and I've already blasted the holes in ``unpublished''. And that claim to ``proprietary'', well, thats blown by not taking steps to protect it, kinda like a trademark. You'd really need a password on the site to assert the unpublished and/or proprietary claims. Kinda like laying a book in the book store with those claims on it and a $0.00 price tag. I just don't think the claims would have a leg to stand on in court. Most any company asserting these claims require an NDA before you can even look at it, let alone download it and use it! -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com Accurate Automation, Inc. Reliable computers for FreeBSD
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709140722.AAA01220>