Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/23/2010 5:44 PM, RJack wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > >> Any change to the functionality of a computer program, no matter how > >> slight, satisfies the requirements of originality. Pretending > >> otherwise might be good for pontificating to your fellow cranks on the > >> internet, but not for anything more. > > > > Functionality isn't even eligible for copyright protection > > Changes to functionality are effected through changes > to program text. Any such change in functionality is > sufficient to satisfy the minimal requirements of > originality.
Uh moron Hyman. http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/originality-requirements.html "While the originality standard is low, it does exist. In particular, the laws stress that it is a programmers expression of some functionality that may be protected by copyright, and not the functionality itself. If code embodies the only way (or one of very few ways) to express its underlying functionality, that code will be considered unoriginal because the expression is inseparable from the functionality. Similarly, if a programs expression is dictated entirely by practical or technical considerations, or other external constraints, it will also be considered unoriginal. The originality of a programs functionality is irrelevant to its eligibility for copyright. Code implementing a completely novel algorithm may not be copyrightable due to a dearth of expressive alternatives. [...] Minimum standard for copyright in literal elements (Lexmark) The Lexmark court identified two doctrinesthe merger doctrine discussed supra, and the scenes a faire doctrineas the appropriate tools for determining how little expression was too little. Applying the merger doctrine to source code, the court stated that if the [programs unprotected underlying] process is embodied inextricably in the line-by-line instructions of the computer program, then the process merges with the expression and precludes copyright protection.39 If a work represents one of only a few possible means of accomplishing a task, it is not copyrightable. The scenes a faire doctrine has its origins in narrative works, and means that expressions which are standard, stock, or that necessarily follow from a common theme or setting cannot be protected.40 In the computer-software context, the doctrine means that the elements of a program dictated by practical realitiese.g., by hardware standards and mechanical specifications, software standards and compatibility requirements, computer manufacturer design standards, target industry practices, and standard computer programming practicesmay not obtain protection.41 If a portion of a programs expression merges with its underlying idea or is dictated by external technical considerations, that portion is not copyrightable under Lexmark. In applying this rule to code, the Lexmark decision directs courts to ask whether the ideas, methods of operation and facts of the program could have been expressed in any form other than that chosen by the programmer, taking into consideration the functionality, compatibility and efficiency demanded of the program.42 The court clearly implies that the capacity for originality in a computer program is to some degree a function of the programs size, stating that for a very large and complex program, it would have been exceedingly difficult to say that practical alternative means of expression did not exist,43 and that a small programs size [may] dictate the content of the [p]rogram.44 Lexmark provides some specific guidance as to what sorts of available variations are insufficient to demonstrate a programs originality: that there exist different ideas or methods of operation altogether for achieving comparable functionality, because these are not copyright-protectable expression;45 representing a formula with a look-up table;46 and re-ordering constituent formulae in a manner analogous to paraphrasing.47 More generally, the court exhibited disregard for conceivable variations that would be trivial, and would not constitute material changes or make any substantial difference to the nature of the program.48 " Interestingly enough http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/originality-requirements.html lacks attribution/authorship acknowledgement for that document which is of atypically good quality v. typical SFLC's nonsensical bullshit. regards, alexander. P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds." Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress." Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
