[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges
- From: Ernest Miller <ernest.miller(at)aya.yale.edu>
- Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 12:56:41 -0400
- References: <OF4E86D7F5.CA6FF35F-ON88256C0C.0056B85F@aero.org>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530
Well, I've always thought that source code would have to be registered
in order for the executable to be protected.
Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> You know something....this source code stuff is the most dangerous thing
> ever invented by the Human race. Forget fire, gunpowder, the hydrogen
> bomb, or ICBMs, that stuff is a clear and present danger to life and
> civilization as we know it. IT HAS TO BE REGULATED AND CENSORED ;-)
>
> Actually you raise an interesting point. What is the source code? Under
> the law it gets copyright protection from when it is created yet never has
> to be distributed or published. How can it be copyrighted if it is not
> released? How can anyone even know what is being protected if they can't
> see it. THe source code is more of a trade secret in the possession of
> microsoft than something that is copyrighted. Now the executable is
> copyrighted since it can be objectively viewed. SOurce code seems to be
> the ultimate in "protectionism".
>
>
>