I am a lawyer, but you may not rely upon the following as advice,  
because these issues simply cannot be resolved in a vacuum.  Only in  
particular cases can advice such advice be meaningful, and in  
general, it is rarely worth more than you have paid for it.  This is  
particularly so when the advice is free.

Copyright in works of authorship vest upon creation in the author,  
except when the work is a work-made-for-hire (don't ask), in which  
case it vests in the person who commissioned the work.  Nothing more  
is necessary to create a copyright than the fixation of the work.   
More is necessary to adequately protect it.

The copyright may be dedicated to the public domain, in which case,  
no person holds exclusive rights in or to the work.  There is no  
meaningful impediment to the use of public domain works, although it  
is useful to have evidence that the work has been so designated.

A notice actually given can suffice to constitute an abandonment or  
dedication, but must be somewhere in a writing signed by the owner to  
be effective.  Note that this is an eggs-in-baskets issue -- each  
person must decide for himself whether they are willing to rely on  
the evidence they have.  For example, what proof do you have that a  
given piece of source code REALLY was licensed under GPL, simply  
because you have a copy of the source code with text that says so?

In other words, there isn't anything terribly special about dedicated  
works that makes them more or less "touchable" than any other code,  
open or proprietary, however licensed.  There are always issues that  
distinguish these three categories of works, but nothing that usually  
is a show-stopper.

So, in response, neither silence nor noise matters in deciding  
whether to use code.  You need to make sure (for sufficiently large  
values of sure, determined on an indvidual basis based on  
circumstances and needs of the parties) that you have rights that  
flow from its owner, or its abandonment thereby, however you receive  
that information.

To credit Jimmie, I sense he is saying he wouldn't "touch" an  
undocumented piece of code without knowing its origin and by what  
rights it is being used.  For sufficiently large values of sure,  
including many small ones, I agree.  The lack of documentation in the  
code, however, does not preclude sufficient amounts of certainty,  
even for very large values of sure.  On the other hand, the presence  
of documentation in the code, does not grant sufficient amounts of  
certainty, even for modestly small values of sure.

On Jun 14, 2005, at 12:37 PM, Jimmie Houchin wrote:

> Chris Muller wrote:
> >>No one will touch code without a copyright declaration.
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>Code without copyright no one will *touch*.
> >
> >
> > A copyright declaration increases the restrictions on a piece of  
> code; wouldn't
> > no copyright be less-restrictive?  What do you mean by "touch"?
> >
> > I don't understand this..
>
> IANAL but... :)
>
> Copyright exists regardless of declaration.
> Declaration of copyright simply makes ownership and rights  
> understood and known by all parties.
>
> Copyright and "copyrights" are distinct and separate from licensing  
> rights and obligations.
>
> Copyright asserts ownership of creation.
> Licensing asserts rights of what can and cannot be done with said  
> creation by non-owners of said creation.
>
> As others stated the best route IMO is simply to use MIT/BSD which  
> declare both copyrights and licensed rights in a very well  
> understood way by individuals and business.
>
> An individual may also place their works in the public domain.
> But this too must be done in a declarative manner. Once in the  
> public domain, the creation may be used by anyone for any purpose.
>
> Silence, is a very dangerous area to enter into with regard to  
> copyrights and licensing.
>
> Declarations of intent are much better.
>
> A business should not touch, use, reuse, distribute, etc. items  
> they have no documentation of rights for. Leaves far too much room  
> for liability.
>
> My 2+cents. :)
>
> Jimmie
>