doug mansell wrote: >>So to re-iterate, the moral is never, ever use an archetype definition >>which was not made available under a perpetual, inalienable license >>which permits you to both modify the archetype and to freely distribute >>it to others, without needing the copyright holder's permission to do so >>- in other words, a free, open source-style license. >> > > > Interesting points Tim. > > The Copyright Act might assist. Pages 66-69 of > http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/244/pdf/Copyright1968.pdf > > IANAL, but it reads quite clearly and it does seem that those who > wrote the act have thought about the need to interoperate. > > I hope no-one promised to change this under the Aus-US FTA. :-/ > > doug.
Yes, good point. The definitions of "computer program: in teh Act definitely include archetype definitions. For reference, the relevant sections of the Act regarding interoperability are: 47D Reproducing computer programs to make interoperable products (1) Subject to this Division, the copyright in a literary work that is a computer program is not infringed by the making of a reproduction or adaptation of the work if: (a) the reproduction or adaptation is made by, or on behalf of, the owner or licensee of the copy of the program (the original program) used for making the reproduction or adaptation; and (b) the reproduction or adaptation is made for the purpose of obtaining information necessary to enable the owner or licensee, or a person acting on behalf of the owner or licensee, to make independently another program (the new program), or an article, to connect to and be used together with, or otherwise to interoperate with, the original program or any other program; and (c) the reproduction or adaptation is made only to the extent reasonably necessary to obtain the information referred to in paragraph (b); and (d) to the extent that the new program reproduces or adapts the original program, it does so only to the extent necessary to enable the new program to connect to and be used together with, or otherwise to interoperate with, the original program or the other program; and (e) the information referred to in paragraph (b) is not readily available to the owner or licensee from another source when the reproduction or adaptation is made. Some thought needed to consider whether these provisions provide enough freedom to prevent data lock-in if "proprietary" archetype definitions are used. They may. Tim C > > _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
