|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 04:40 PM EDT |
That's because a "collective work" is a kind of
"compilation".
I.e. all collective works are compilations, but not all compilations are
collective works. Selection, coordination, and arrangement is protected in all
compilations.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 05:54 PM EDT |
Interesting and useful comment. So, we
learn from this that Boies Schiller was
unaware of the differences the law requires
when filing for copyrights as a compilation
or as a collective work.
So it has now learned something the hard way.
Mark told me even among lawyers not that many
know this detail that Van Nest and Baber picked
up on.
Boies Schiller, I've read, likes to try
new things. That has advantages, but it also
means you don't have a lot of prior efforts to
learn from. And you can look stupid, if it
doesn't work. Thinking "The GPL is UnConstitutional".
Hahahha - my all time favorite moment in the SCO
saga so far.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: _Arthur on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 05:59 PM EDT |
There is often apparent similarity in SSO of two independent implementations,
when both implementations were based on a common specification.
The order of subfunctions and the hierarchy of of function calls described in
the specification will (most of the time), be faithfully followed in the
implementation.
Without any copying from the other implementation.
The apparent SSO is just an artefact of following the specification.
It happened in the SCO case with the Berkeley Packet Sniffer (?): both
implementations were different, but used common names for functions and
global variables, and a logical order for the sequence of function
(alphabetical, duh), because both were created from a common (open)
specification.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
