Most open source actually does have copyright attached to it for exactly the reasons you outline in this thread. The idea being that the author copyrights the work (by statement in the code) and then transfers rights to others, using vehicles like the GPL licensing. Open access doesn't necessarily mean complete lack of copyright. Ask Linus about that one. Linux developers usually go to some lengths to make sure code is protected. Microsoft have been down this road before. I'm thinking of the wars they have had with IBM over OS2, and with Apple. Joint developments which went awry, and resulting 'copyright infringements'. But these people were big enough to fight back. As far as I can see, someone can reverse engineer a product and develop something fairly similar. So longs none of the original code is used, the product can have a similar look and feel. Some software developers try to use the patent law to protect ideas. The law is not good at protecting them. As A software developer I would be very pissed off if someone else used my ideas to produce a new program , and then takes my market away from me. Fair enough: that's what the law's for. Except it doesn't work properly :-) Microsoft see a once only opportunity to deal with a competitor before he gets too big. I think much of that's going on in the States is smoke and mirrors, but it would cost the open source community serious money to fight it. That's the thing to worry about. Can someone point me at online references to the situation in the States? I'm out of date on developments. -- ******************************************************************************** All mail sent and received may be examined to prevent transmission of inappropriate attachments and certain obscenities. Wellington College does not accept responsibility for email contents. Problems to postmaster@wellington-college.berks.sch.uk. ********************************************************************************