|
|
| New Page for Copyright Information |
 |
|
Tuesday, July 22 2003 @ 09:15 PM EDT
|
This is to let you know that I researched and researched and researched all day and evening, and I've collected all the information I could find on the copyright in a separate, permanent page, which you can access by clicking on the "Copyright Info" link to the left. I can't promise that it's complete for reasons I detail on the page itself, but it's a start. Update 2008: You can find all the copyrights on the Contracts page.]
I don't know if it's possible to get carpal tunnel in the shoulder, but that's what I feel like tonight, so I'll save everything else I learned today until the next time, except for one thing.
I learned today that Dan Ravicher, who is an attorney with Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, and who wrote "Software Derivative Work: A Circuit Dependent Determination" which is available here as a pdf, is now pro bono counsel also for the FSF. I didn't know that, and I thought some of you coders out there might like to know.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 23 2003 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
In copyright law, as I understand it, there's an important distinction between
ideas (non-copyrightable) and expression (copyrightable). Just how this
distinction applies to computer software has stymied the courts for decades. One
point seems clear: line-by-line duplication of code does NOT necessarily imply
that a copyright violation has taken place. One appellate court actually found
that the ideas were in the "functional" code, while the expression could be
found only in the comments! Furthermore, the existence of duplicate lines may
simply indicate that there is no other reasonable or efficient way to accomplish
a function that is indispensable to the programs in question. For a charge of
copyright infringement to stick, SCO would have to show, MINIMALLY, that the
copying was (1) quite substantial and continuous, (2) involved functions that
could have been created two or more different ways but were not; and (3)
provably done at a certain time and place and in a manner designed to evade
detection. I think this is the reason that IBM's attorneys have more or less
laughed off SCO's lawsuit.
Bryan [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 24 2003 @ 08:22 PM EDT |
| Bryan,
Feel free to send some cases our way. Also, if you haven't seen it yet, you
might check the SCO Archives for something we did on copyright: http://radio.weblogs.com
/0120124/2003/07/05.html
Other articles touched on this subject too. The Legal Links page has links to
research sites where cases can be found.
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
