Re: Licence to view source code.

On 28/04/97, Edward Barrow <edward[_at_]plato32.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Web pages are copyright works, provided that they are original. To view
> such web pages requires copies to be made (from the server into various
> caches, then onto the screen). Such copies are, in UK law at least,
> copies requiring the consent of the copyright holder. It is reasonable
> to assume, therefore, that by posting the pages on the server and
> publicising the URL the copyright holder has granted an implied licence
> to surfers to make the copies necessary to view the pages. UK courts
> tend to limit implied licences to the narrowest possible construction.
>
> My questions:
> (a) would the above analysis apply in the US? If not what doctrines
> apply?
> (b) would the above analysis apply in other jurisdictions (e.g. Civil
> Code droit d'auteur jurisdictions)? If not what doctrines apply?
> (c) does the implied licence (or equivalent doctrine) extend to:
> i) viewing the document source code?
> ii) printing the document?
>
> [My answer to (c) i) and ii) in the UK would be 'probably not' but I'd
> be interested in others' opinions]

Given that every browser I've ever used is so arranged that the source code (I assume you mean the underlying HTML which produces the web page) can be viewed with a couple of mouse clicks, one could assume that this is known to those who upload web pages, just as we assume that they know about caching on proxy servers and copies existing in RAM. Then, by analogy, isn't there an implied licence to view the source code?

Also, have you overlooked the fair dealing/fair use defences, or are you just particularly interested in the implied licence issue.

Cheers,
Mike
Copyright Officer, QUT

Michael Lean
<m.lean[_at_]qut.edu.au> Received on Wed Apr 30 1997 - 02:39:35 GMT