Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!nerim.net!novso.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed1.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <51b51ef9$0$30001$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
References: <kp07qo$r05$1@ger.gmane.org> <51B450C1.5030506@berlin.de> <CAMjeLr8zUAdKKtXy5oyxV=Lo9Nc4iKK9THCmp8FjhYLV0-KiiQ@mail.gmail.com> <51B4DCA2.9000903@gmail.com> <CAMjeLr9LT_pWUWUCsDEiW9vDRc71VdOtDnK+zfb2UtEJwVOqaQ@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.2942.1370815687.3114.python-list@python.org> <51b51ef9$0$30001$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 13:31:36 +1000
Subject: Re: Re-using copyrighted code
From: Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
To: python-list@python.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.2952.1370835105.3114.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 43
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:47515

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:07:57 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Mark Janssen
>> <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> That's not entirely correct.  If he *publishes* his code (I'm using
>>> this term "publish" technically to mean "put forth in a way where
>>> anyone of the general public can or is encouraged to view"), then he is
>>> *tacitly* giving up protections that secrecy (or *not* disclosing it)
>>> would *automatically* grant.  The only preserved right is authorship
>>> after that.   So it can be re-distributed freely, if authorship is
>>> preserved.  The only issue after that is "fair use" and that includes
>>> running the program (not merely copying the source).
>>
>> (Digression follows.) That was true back in the late 1800s in the US,
>> but was not true in England at that time, and was solved in a
>> unification of copyright laws and treaties. There was a huge issue over
>> the copyright of the opera "HMS Pinafore"
>
> No, it was not true. Mark is saying that publishing a work automatically
> revokes all the privileges granted by copyright, which is ridiculous.
> There has never been a time where copyright only applies to secret works
> that aren't published.
>
> The HMS Pinafore issue -- and similarly for the works of Mark Twain, and
> any other British author who had work published in the US -- was that
> their copyright in Britain was not recognised, or legally enforceable, in
> the USA.

It was partly that, but there were also aspects of "you've published
the vocal score, ergo you can't claim copyright on the opera". This,
incidentally, ignored the fact that the *orchestrations* are a huge
part of the quality of the show (you can't just take the piano/vocal
reduction and perfectly recreate the magnificent sound of the
orchestra), but the courts can't be expected to be artistic!

Granted, IANAL, but the scholarly article I linked to above refers to
several of the same issues. I don't know about publication revoking
*all rights*, but there was definitely an understanding by the court
that publication meant a reduction of copyright claim.

ChrisA