Re-using copyrighted code

[Mark Janssen]

>>> Can you provide any citations for your interpretation? Besides "that's
>>> what the law should be", I mean.
>>
>> I don't think I even have to:  the legal code you're citing above is
>> not very clear, consistent, or well-defined at all.  As such, it shows
>> that this area remains an area that has yet to be worked out by all
>> parties involved.   I would happily volunteer for any interested
>> parties to such a broken system.  Alternatively, I've been working on
>> a real fix to IP protections in the form of a unified data model for
>> the internet and data ecosystem.
>
> Except that's now how law works in the US.  All laws are unclear,
> inconsistent or ill-defined.

Yes, but the issue is that some participants were suggesting that the
law *is* clear when it is not -- so what is the procedure to follow
when that is the case?

>Many laws even contradict existing laws.
> That's why there's a long history and tradition (for good or ill) of
> courts establishing case law to clarify and codify the implementation of
> law, and to resolve incompatibilities and consistencies.
>
> So while your views may be logical to you, and even common sense, unless
> case law backs you up, your opinions are irrelevant to the actual
> implementation of copyright law.

No, the system of law is made for, and by the people, so while it may
not reflect consensus, it isn't necessarily irrelevant and in any case
where there are people spouting law as if it WAS clear, someone must
do the job breaking down the walls.

> As much as many of us are open source or even free software advocates,
> we do have to live within the copyright law currently,

We do not have to live within it, we can create it.  Where did you get
this idea?

-- 
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington