Re: Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.

["\\0xDynamite" <dreamingforward@gmail.com>]

>> The notion of being "published" means at least these two things:  1)
>
> Where exactly - URL? - is that notion defined?

I'm giving you the most sensible definition, from the point of view of
a Doctor of Law.  I have not seen a real definition, so I'm giving you
one.

> Especially the intention is IMHO not necessary - just the fact if it
> happened (and I don't think we want to discuss legal stuff about "X
> broke into my home, stole and published my work" - the patent world has
> the same problem).

No, you must have the intention.  If you have a copy of your new book
on your computer, but someone steals it and prints it -- it is not a
"published" work.

And there is no URL.  You can take my word for it, along with my
credentials, or you can ignore it.

>> So, is code a *published* item?  Most of the public can't read it.
>
> I cannot read (or understand) neither Russian nor Chinese nor almost any
> natural (let alone dead) languages of the world. I'm pretty sure that
> I'm not the only one;-)
> Does that make Russian literature non-public? I don't think so ...

You confuse the issue.  My definition included "intended for the
public".  But it isn't clear that open source code is intended for the
public -- it is intended for those who code or wish to.

Past your inflammatory remarks, I withdraw any further commentary.

Mark Janssen, JD