Alan Mackenzie wrote: > I'm not carrying on with this sort of evasive and inane form of "debate".
To recap: <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf> A computer program is defined by US copyright law as "a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result" It is my opinion that this definition does not mean that the set of statements in the definition is capable of bringing about the result by itself, without the assistance of other software with which it interoperates. Furthermore, it is my opinion that the size of the computer program has no bearing on the ability to copyright it. Its is my opinion that a program such as bool is_prime(int n){for(int i=2;i<n;++i)if(!(i%n))return 0; return 1;} is copyrightable despite the fact that it is only one line long and does nothing unless invoked by other software. My opinion is borne out by the fact that there are numerous copyrighted software products that do nothing without being invoked from other programs, including libraries whose rights are owned by the FSF and distributed under the GPL or LGPL. It is my opinion that the ability to copyright a computer program rests not on its size, but on two things. First, it must be, as the law states, an "original work(s) of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression" and second, it can be infringed upon only when the infringing work passes the abstraction/filtration/comparison test <http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/originality-requirements.html> so that elements which are present because they are necessary for efficiency or interoperability, or because they represent the only way of doing something do not infringe. A collective work is defined by copyright law as "a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole" It is my opinion that a work is not a collective work until it has actually been assembled into a collective work. Instructions on how to produce a collective work are not themselves a collective work. Copyright law says (f) Reverse Engineering.— (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-section (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title. ... (4) For purposes of this subsection, the term “interoperability” means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged. Copyright law also says § 117 · Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner The court in Krause vs. Titleserv talks about this: <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039303p.pdf> Given the ambiguity of the text, we turn to the legislative history of § 117(a) for guidance. As discussed above, Congress enacted the language proposed in the CONTU Report largely without alteration. The House Report simply states that § 117(a) “embodies the recommendation” of CONTU. ... The report states: Thus, a right to make those changes necessary to enable the use for which it was both sold and purchased should be provided. The conversion of a program from one higher-level language to another to facilitate use would fall within this right, as would the right to add features to the program that were not present at the time of rightful acquisition. Combining these three readings, it is my opinion that it is permissible to read a computer program so as to determine its method of operation, then to write a separate program (without copying from the other) which will interoperate with the other program when executed, then to distribute this new separate program under any terms chosen by its author, then to modify the other program in order to have the other program interoperate with the new one (but not to distribute the modified program), all without requiring permission from the copyright holder of the other program. It is my opinion that if the separate program is combined by a translator with other works into a statically bound single file, the resulting file is a collective work and requires the permission of the copyright holder of each of the bound components to copy and distribute. It is my opinion that if the separate program is distributed on a distribution medium along with the program with which it is to interoperate, in such a way as to make clear that the components are to be used together, there is a plausible argument to be made that this too is a collective work. It is my opinion that if the separate work is distributed along with instructions on how to obtain the other program with which it is to interoperate and how to create the combined program such that the interoperation is enabled, this does not constitute a collective work and requires no permission from the copyright holder of the other program. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
