HTML is code , so it's copyrightable. However, IMHO in your case the question is if they own anything what do they own?
The html document's content,design/style wasn't there's so don't own that. You rewrote al the non-html code so they don't own that. You rewrote a lot of the html so they don't own that. So the question is what is left what they could possibly own. (The fact that they used dreamware doesn't mean anything. It's like the output of a compiler, the output is as much copyrighted as the source code)
If they own anything does it matter? They did know you were going to put there html online. So that there code was going to be distributed wasn't any supprise to them. Also the fact that the content of webpages change, and so the html code changes was also no supprise to them. They did recieve money So as i see it, if they own the code, they licensed it under a license were it's OK to distributed the code and change the code.
So I don't see how they could win this.
( If you lose the next thing we see is a secretary going after her/his bos because she claims to own parts of the copyright of a letter her bos dictated )
As i see it nobody has done more for free software /open source than RMS.
Some people just don't understand that RMS can't compromise his ideals for anything, not even a little. This is his job, he needs to remind everyone of were Free Software is all about. This doesn't mean you can't disagree with RMS, or that you have to live according to his values.
It just means that we need to listen to him and others (like ESR) and consider if the direction were going is the right direction or that we need to adjust our course. Ofcourse this doesn't mean we need to take RMS course or anybody others.
Slashdot Mirror
HTML is code , so it's copyrightable.
However, IMHO in your case the question is if they own anything what do they own?
The html document's content,design/style wasn't there's so don't own that.
You rewrote al the non-html code so they don't own that.
You rewrote a lot of the html so they don't own that.
So the question is what is left what they could possibly own.
(The fact that they used dreamware doesn't mean anything.
It's like the output of a compiler, the output is as much copyrighted as the source code)
If they own anything does it matter? They did know you were going to put there html online.
So that there code was going to be distributed wasn't any supprise to them.
Also the fact that the content of webpages change, and so the html code changes
was also no supprise to them.
They did recieve money
So as i see it, if they own the code, they licensed it under a license were it's OK to
distributed the code and change the code.
So I don't see how they could win this.
( If you lose the next thing we see is a secretary going after her/his bos
because she claims to own parts of the copyright of a letter her bos dictated )
As i see it nobody has done more for free software
/open source than RMS.
Some people just don't understand that RMS can't
compromise his ideals for anything, not even a little. This is his job, he needs to remind everyone of were Free Software is all about.
This doesn't mean you can't disagree with RMS, or
that you have to live according to his values.
It just means that we need to listen to him and
others (like ESR) and consider if the direction were going is the right direction or that we need to adjust our course. Ofcourse this doesn't mean we need to take RMS course or anybody others.