SH>Even in the rules of this echo, I believe, it says something about if you
 >post source code, not to expect to maintain a copyright on it. Which makes
 >a lot of sense, because if the code is useful, it wouldn't be a problem at
 >all for someone to take the code, remove the header, modify it to work with
 >one of their current programs, or just modify it to look like it were
 >theirs.
 SR> Please offer a citation to support this claim.
 
   Yep, BD is wrong there: the echo rules have always stated that
posted code must _not_ be copyrighted and must be presented as Public
Domain.  The same is true for most FidoNet echoes, I'm sure, since the
(very real) threat of litigation is ever-present.
 SH>Basically, if you want to maintain any sort of rights on your code, and
 >don't want others to use it, don't post it in an international echo. It's
 >simply stupid. Someone posted an example of a book being "full text" and
 >released to the public, that's comparable to when a programmer releases the
 >compiled program, copyright intact. With authors, they put the book through
 >the legal copyright process, get the title trademarked, and they'd be
 >protected, because they could prove ownership on the original text.
 SR> This argument is as valid as saying that if you want to hold
 SR> copyright on a novel you can't print and distribute it...
 SR> No offense, BD, but your ideas about copyrights are fantasy.
   As always...it would serve him or others who live this fantasy to get
their *sses sued.
... Not hungry, not homeless. Will work for sex.
--- OMX/Blue Wave/DOS v2.20
---------------