I know EXACTLY what a copyright is. The code I posted
That is true, and I confess that I didn't read throught the code to see that
there is nothing in that code that isn't in the public domain. I feel, however,
that you should have obtained one of the above-noted references, or simply
posted the code without any reference, instead of "quoting from the book".
Does this mean that Microsoft, Dev Ashish, and Sams are
the only ones with rights to this code?
Certainly not.
I was citing a source and not profiting by it;
furthermore, the book invites you to 'pull sample code
right into your own applications' which is reproduction
with implied consent and not direct written consent.
That is common with most publications of this type. Much of the code in such
publications, however, may have been written by the author and, if you buy the
book, you acquire any reproduction rights that are explicit/implicit in the
copyright or contents, generally for your own use, but not for republication.
I appreciate what you are trying to do, but you should
probably think before you write. And you really don't
need to be condescending, either.
I'm not sure where you got the impression that I was being condescending. I was
certainly not assuming that you understood what a copyright represented, hence
the explanation, but I did not belittle you or attempt to raise myself above
you. I would have had no problem if you had simply posted the code (as it is in
the public domain) without the publication reference. If you are looking for an
apology, then here it is, for what it's worth.
