Arch said:
I suspect that if any of those guys (Litwin, Getz, or Gilbert) were
approached, they would readily grant permission to post that function.
I can't agree, however, that this falls under "Fair Use" guidelines. I
think it is rather blatant copyright violation.
My 2 cents worth,
Arch
I think it's a tough call in this case for the following reasons:
1. The post contained way more code than needed to make the point.
2. The post contained clipboard code, the revealing of which could have
been the reason for the post.
3. The poster didn't show which improvements were made, making it hard
to determine how much of the post contains technical innovation.
4. It's difficult to determine the effect of the post on sales of the
book, if any.
5. The poster doesn't appear to be getting any financial gain from the post.
6. The original book is long, making the portion of the copyrighted work
small.
The stringency of the copyright notice suggests that even enhancements
to the code aren't permissible without permission and that the poster
should have honored that. But, it's possible that even a blatant
copyright violation can fall under "Fair Use," since any Fair Use is
blatant to some extent. In this case, even if revealing the clipboard
code can be proven to be intentional, it's not likely that the minimal
legal damages would be worth pursuing. A lawyer would be a better
person to ask about whether a particular citation falls under Fair Use
or not. I agree that getting permission would have been the preferred
way to go. Personally, I didn't think the code was even worth saving
anyway.
That brings up the topic of the code that Microsoft will be revealing as
part of Visual Studio 2008. The move is a welcome one that will benefit
both developers and Microsoft. It also affords some peace of mind about
the particular sections of code where that is allowed. The problem is
that the license is restrictive to the point that you can't expand on
any ideas you get from seeing their code. Thus, I won't be poking
around in any of that code unless I have no other choice due to some
unfathomable bug. I believe that, in the absence of a contractual
agreement such as an EULA, it's not possible to protect particular
software techniques. Even a contract cannot utterly protect particular
software techniques since particular portions of a contract can be
overturned if they are too outré. BTW, as seen on television, some
software companies have found some very effective legal techniques aimed
at getting around legal software obstacles, even sometimes going to the
extreme of hiring programmers who can be proven not to know about a
competitor's software and giving them a list of objectives that must be met.
James A. Fortune
(e-mail address removed)