On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Richard Kenner wrote: >>> >>> IE they don't care whether it i printed, and don't care whether it i a >>> publication, they care whether it is accessible to the public and has >>> been disseminated to the public. >> >> Right. That's exactly what I meant. They are saying that "printed" >> vs "electronic" doesn't matter. >> >> However, the issue here isn't whether it matters if the GCC sources were >> printed in a book someplace or just available electronically. >> >> The issue that Robert was raising is not the "printed" part, but the >> "publication" part. Specifically, if source code could be considered >> a "publication". Reading the reference you gave makes it sound like >> they're >> using the term "publication" interchangably with "technical paper" in >> that they're talking about online references and databases. >> >> Nothing in that document (I didn't go to the referenced cases) seems on >> point to the issue of whether source code is a "publication". > > For example, at one extreme, the source code may have extensive comments > so that it is clearly a publication. > > At the other extreme it could be uncommented junk, and an argument could > be made that someone with appropriate skills could not reasonably extract > the information needed. >
I understand the problem you are facing, but the cited case (and those following it) make clear they do not equate "publication" with "technical paper", but instead "something available to the public, regardless of form". "interpretation of the words 'printed' and 'publication' to mean 'probability of dissemination' and 'public accessibility'" (note that publication is equated with public accessibility, not form of document If you want to argue they are not exactly on point, you could try, but given there is absolutely no caselaw i can find coming down that would support such a position, I think you would be hard pressed to find a judge who would not roll their eyes at you. :)
