Re: Exclusion of international laws
This is not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established. etc etc From: Abe Kornelis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Exclusion of international laws Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 22:02:29 -0800 Hello all, Best wishes for the new year to all of you. I have noticed that various OSI-approved licenses exclude the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. First question: why would anyone want to exclude a supranational regulation. I'd suppose such regulations are installed in order to promote international trade... A contracting party would want to exclude the UN CISG primarily where it prefers a different law. For example, where a party prefers the law of New York with respect to all its transactions, domestic or international, it would want to exclude the UN CISG from applying to its international contracts - a uniformity reason. A party may want to have a law it knows apply instead of assume the interpretation of the UN CISG - a certainty reason. A party may disagree with the provisions of the UN CISG - a substantive reason. Of course, there could me many more reasons. You can read the UN CISG here: http://www.uncitral.org/english/texts/sales/CISG.htm Second question: Once this Convention has been ratified by a country's government I'd assume it has status of law within that country. Is it legally possible then, to bypass such a regulation? I mean, I could write that applciation of regulations relating to racism are excluded from my license X, but I seriously doubt that such a statement would have any consequence: it would simply be overridden by 'the law'. Anybody willing to shed some light on these - to me - murky matters? The UN CISG expressly permits parties, i.e. parties to a contract as distinct from the States who ratify the CISG, to exclude its application. Article 6 The parties may exclude the application of this Convention or, subject to article 12, derogate from or vary the effect of any of its provisions. http://www.uncitral.org/english/texts/sales/CISG.htm Thanks in advance, and kind regards, Abe. -- Abe F. Kornelis, B.V. Bixoft Het Jaagpad 63, 3461 HA Linschoten The Netherlands phone: +31-6-22755401 To visit our website: either: http://www.bixoft.com or: http://www.bixoft.nl -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open source shareware?
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc. etc. From: Angelo Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Open source shareware? Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 12:28:12 + Hi all! Angelo Schneider David Johnson: On Thursday 08 November 2001 08:05 am, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: As long as this permission notice and disclaimer are included, any person obtaining a copy of this software may distribute this software or derivatives. Where's my permission to create derivatives? I see that I can distribute them, but there's nothing about being able to create them. This is a crucial distinction. As it now stands, I have the right to distribute derivatives created by OTHER people, but not to create them myself. You do not need a permission to create derivates, IMHO. As I understand copyright law creating of a derived work is free for everyone. Only redistribution, public performance etc. is regulated. This is plain wrong in all copyright laws that I am aware of, including Germany. The basic principle is that creation of a derivative work (or whatever the term is in other laws outside the U.S.) is an exclusive right of the copyright owner. That means someone needs either permission from the copyright owner (e.g., license) or rely on some other defense (e.g., fair use, de minimis, etc.). Angelo -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Intel's proposed BSD + Patent License
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. Speaking only for myself. etc. etc. - Original Message - From: Stamnes, Michelle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 8:31 PM Subject: Response to comments on Intel's proposed BSD+Patent license There seem to be a number of comments on the BSD+ Patent license we have proposed that claim that the license is not open because it only licenses a specific product; i.e., Linux. First, this is not true. The patent license that is extended is for ANY OS that is licensed under the GPL. It may be Linux or any other OS that is licensed under GPL. I think the concern was that the license that was extended was limited to a certain field - operating systems under the GPL - and thereby not in compliance with the OSD Guidelines by excluding other products and/or other licenses. From what I can tell, the OSD language is not limited to licenses of specific rights such as copyright. Whether in application it is I am not sure. Second, and far more fundamental, all of the threads seem to agree: 1. BSD is a copyright only license. 2. BSD grants NO rights to patents. 3. BSD is an open license. I am not sure if I can absolutely agree with statements 1) and 2). The license grants in the BSD make no reference to copyright and so expressly or impliedly may include limited patent rights to the extent needed to allow the licensee to perform the grants in the BSD license. Indeed, the express patent license grant may negate that the basic BSD express or implied patent license grant. So, a concern might be that the licensee may be getting less than what the original BSD provided and that less doesn't meet the terms or the spirit of the OSD (see above). It is not logical to say that a license that grants MORE rights than the BSD is not open. If you use the software in an OS licensed under GPL, you also get a patent license on the use of that software. For the sake of example, let's assume that instead of granting the additional value of a patent license from Intel, the proposed license said If you use the software in an OS that is licensed under the GPL, Intel will pay you $100. The license merely provides an incentive for a particular use, but does not prohibit other uses. Now, change the value to being a patent license. That does not change the fact that there is additional value; it is just value of a different form. How is that not an open license? Finally, under the proposed license, you can use the software in Solaris or any other proprietary OS or in any other piece of software (in addition to the GPL based OS's). You just don't have a patent license; so you are no worse off than with the BSD license. I am not sure a licensee is no worse off. In the original BSD, the licensee may have an express license to do what he/she needs. However, even if patents are found not be within the express license, the licensee may have an implied patent license or may rely on other defenses (e.g. experimental use, de minimis, etc.). And, in this case, an express patent license possibly negates some or all of those possibilities in a manner that does not offer all the rights required by the OSD. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Intel's proposed BSD + Patent License
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. Speaking only for myself. etc etc. From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Intel's proposed BSD + Patent License Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:00:56 -0500 (EST) John Cowan writes: Stamnes, Michelle wrote: Yes, you can use this software with FreeBSD. FreeBSD is subject to the BSD license, so you have no patent license for the original code. I'm sorry, but this seems to be a contradiction in terms. If there is an Intel patent on the art of which this software is an expression, then *using* the software with FreeBSD is precisely what we cannot do without becoming scofflaws. If you're using FreeBSD, then your rights under the BSD+Patent License are exactly the same as if the code was BSD licensed. How is this not open source? It can be not open source if the original BSD license included a limited patent license and an express patent license provides even more limited rights than the original BSD which do meet the OSD. actual *distribution* of the OS under the GPL. s/BSD/GPL/, burn a CD, and send it to me. You are now using a GPL-licensed OS. But that's besides the point, really. The point is whether a license which is open source can become not so if a patent license is included with it. Speaking about the general case, it seems to me that the OSD is not couched in the terminology of specific rights. It talks of licenses. In my view, as the OSD is drafted, all granted licenses in an OSD approved license, whether, e.g., patent or copyright, must meet the OSD. Moreover, the non-specificity seems to make sense - the licensee should be secure that he/she has all the rights needed to practice at least the grants specified in the license. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Why are we still fighting 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | the war on drugs when there Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | is a real war to fight? -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Intel's proposed BSD + Patent License
This is not legal advice. No client-attorney relationship is established. Speaking solely for myself. etc etc - Original Message - From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Kolb, Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Stamnes, Michelle [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Simon, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 4:15 PM Subject: Re: Intel's proposed BSD + Patent License John Cowan writes: Russell Nelson wrote: [snip] Essentially, we are all of us completely and totally screwed by the patent system. If I invent something that you have put into your (unpublished -- at least as far as the patent system is concerned) code for decades, and patent it, I 0WN J00. Doesn't matter if you're IBM and I'm Joe Blow, or vice-versa even. This statement can't be categorically made and misses nuances. For example, in probably every country in the world, there are prior user rights of some form i.e. someone using a patented invention before application for that invention can continue to use that invention.Unfortunately in the U.S. they are very narrow rights but in other countries they are quite broad. Further, prior use and prior invention can be a bar to or invalidate a patent in the U.S. and elsewhere - the devil is in the details. Criterion 8 (License Must Not Be Specific To A Product) is violated, in substance if not to the letter; this license is in effect specific to Linux. On the other hand, if they left that patent license off, we would certify it. However, you would have less freedom to use such patented software because you don't have a license. I think you are assuming that the BSD grant does not include rights to patents. From what I recall, the BSD makes no reference to specific rights, whether copyright, patent or anything else for that matter (except it requires the inclusion of the copyright notice). Patents suck THS much (picture me opening my hands above my head to show you how bad patents are). In essence, every open source license which does not include a patent grant is just so much hot air. About the only thing we can reasonably do is be thankful that any patent rights are included, and approve the license based on the copyright permissions granted. Note that the Intel BSD+Patent License does not make copying dependent upon patent noninfringement. The patent grant is a separate term. And what about jurisdictions? Jurisdiction is even more significant in the patent field than in the copyright field. At least copyright lawyers have the Berne Convention. So in a jurisdiction where software cannot be patented, the patent grant is meaningless. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Why are we still fighting 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | the war on drugs when there Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | is a real war to fight? -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Intel's proposed BSD + Patent License
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. Speaking only for myself. etc etc. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Intel's proposed BSD + Patent License Date: 30 Oct 2001 18:24:32 -0800 On Tue, 30 October 2001, Russell Nelson wrote: Essentially, we are all of us completely and totally screwed by the patent system. If I invent something that you have put into your (unpublished -- at least as far as the patent system is concerned) code for decades, and patent it, I 0WN J00. Doesn't matter if you're IBM and I'm Joe Blow, or vice-versa even. given: http://www.nolo.com/encyclopedia/faqs/pts/pct3.html#FAQ-294 =Patents must be novel (that is, it must be different from all =previous inventions in some important way). = =Patents must be nonobvious (a surprising and significant development) =to somebody who understands the technical field of the invention. I don't see how you could patent something that I've had in code for decades. It's neither nonobvious nor novel. If the invention embodied within the code has never become publicly known or used or has otherwise been kept secret, then it is possible. The patent system is all about encouraging disclosure. Granted, software patents can be a pain (Some perl/tk widgets had to have functionality ripped out because they supported a patented image format) and, IMHO, stupid (the one-click patent from days gone by) but has the scenario you described actually happened? (i.e. decades old code getting patented out from under someone) Not sure about the circumstance regarding the decades old code. If the invention was properly made known or used in the public then a granted patent for that invention may be invalid. You have to remember that the patent system is not all knowing - it may not know of this decades old code unless it has been cited to the relevant patent office. If the invention was kept secret, then a patent for the invention may be valid. However a user of the invention before the grant of the patent may be able to continue to use the invention under prior use rights. Patent systems are different around the world so no general statement can be made. Further, each situation is very fact specific. Greg -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Intel's proposed BSD + Patent License
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. Speaking for myself only. etc etc From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Intel's proposed BSD + Patent License Date: 31 Oct 2001 06:22:39 -0800 On Tue, 30 October 2001, David Johnson wrote: On Tuesday 30 October 2001 06:24 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: =Patents must be novel (that is, it must be different from all =previous inventions in some important way). = =Patents must be nonobvious (a surprising and significant development) =to somebody who understands the technical field of the invention. The current system is based on whoever filed first. It may not be the law, but it is the practice. But if I code some software, register it with the copyright office, put a LGPL license on it, put it on the web, and I DON'T get a patent for it, then, YOU shouldn't be able to take my code and patent it, just because there's no prior patent art, doesn't mean it's novel. Someone may be able to get a patent but it may be invalid. The relevant patent office may not be aware of this code. Further, someone is not entitled to a patent for someone else's invention. The applicant must have invented the invention not have taken it. This issue is called derivation in patent law circles. Non-patent prior art is relevant to the examination of applications for patents and for invalidating granted patents. at work, we get a patent refresher every year or so. basically, we are not to tell our customers anything about future ASIC products without first passing it by our legal department for approval. apparently if we say too much, give away too much detail, we can lose a right to a possible patent. code registered with the copyright office decades ago should similarly disqualify patentability. It may but it depends on what is actually registered. In many cases a registration for software includes a redacted version of source code (to preserve trade secrets). Accordingly, the invalidating effect may be limited. Unfortunately, the patent system is no longer being run by logic, common sense, or even the LAW. It's being run by lawyers. Despite our veneer of civilization, might still makes right, and the lawyers have a monopoly on the application of might. The law means whatever they say it means. While I share your concerns about where the patent system is headed, I would note that the patent system is ultimately run by the various national governments. They can put an end to the patent system. Lawyers are ultimately just middlemen and dependent on the graces of the national governments. Further, lawyers typically act on behalf of clients. While lawyers certainly have a vested interest, they are dependent on benefactors (otherwise they are doing something else). So, I would suggest that the responsibilities of the government and interests of the patent system end-users not be lost. Just my biased two cents ;-) OK, time for a beer. ;) Greg -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Is inherited class a derivative work?
This is not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established. etc etc From: Michael Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Is inherited class a derivative work? Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 05:45:38 -0400 [snip] Of course, by using the fair use doctrine, you could use API to create an independent (cleanroom) implementation. That's what seems to be happening with OpenSource cleanroom implementations of Java API. In the case of Java, there seems to be no need to rely on fair use. The following is from, e.g., the JDK 1.1 documentation: Sun Microsystems, Inc. (SUN) hereby grants to you a fully-paid, nonexclusive, nontransferable, perpetual, worldwide limited license (without the right to sublicense) under SUN's intellectual property rights that are essential to practice this specification. This license allows and is limited to the creation and distribution of clean room implementations of this specification that (i) include a complete implementation of the current version of this specification without subsetting or supersetting, (ii) implement all the interfaces and functionality of the standard java.* packages as defined by SUN, without subsetting or supersetting, (iii) do not add any additional packages, classes or methods to the java.* packages (iv) pass all test suites relating to the most recent published version of this specification that are available from SUN six (6) months prior to any beta release of the clean room implementation or upgrade thereto, (v) do not derive from SUN source code or binary materials, and (vi) do not include any SUN binary materials without an appropriate and separate license from SUN. Also, keep in mind that the meaning of fair use is not internationally defined. The U.S. probably has the most generous fair use doctrine. Most other countries, especially European countries, have very narrow fair dealing provisions which are in most cases very limited e.g. use (copying, preparing derivative works, etc.) for news reporting, criticism and research. Further, fair use in the U.S. is an extremely fact specific inquiry - there are pretty much no absolutes. However, as indicated in another thread here, Sun in its license indicates that it has control over changes to the API by stating that any changes to the API have to be published. Since nobody challenged it so far, it seems that there might be something to Sun's claim. There may be something to Sun's claim if looked at from the implementation view point. A set of APIs can be viewed as a compilation. Creating an implementation that incorporates that compilation (and thus exposes that set of APIs) may require a license or other permission. Michael APIs and even data base schemata (what you get after executing a sequence of SQL create table statements) are explicitly noted as: not copyright able, not patent able, not trademark able. That's interesting. Can you provide any references to it? (in English or German). Is it German law, or EU? Thanks, Michael -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License
This is not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established. etc etc. From: SamBC [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Humphreys, Noel [EMAIL PROTECTED], License-Discuss@Opensource. Org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: RealNetworks' RTSP Proxy License Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 14:00:50 +0100 -Original Message- From: Humphreys, Noel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] SNIP Copyright law empowers an author to restrict others from copying the work. A user therefore wants the license to allow the user to copy the work. In software terms, copying occurs when the user's hard drive or RAM receives or records the software, for example. Copyright law *does* specify that such copying essential to use is not considered copying, and is not a reserved right. We've had this out on this list before. U.S. and a number of other countries' copyright law indeed permits as an exception the limited ability of making of a copy in the utilization of program on a machine. See section 117 of the U.S. Copyright Act. Laws of many other countries do not provide such an explicit exception. Moreover, most countries in the world do not provide as wide a fair use privilege as the U.S or recognize implied license (or if so, an express license likely trumps). SNIP Copyright law does state that the copyright holder does not perforce reserve the right to use the work, however that may apply to the work. They may not forbid people to read a book, but they may forbid them to read it in public. They may not forbid people to *privately* perform a play, or rehearse it, but they may forbid them from performing in public. Get the idea. AFAIK in almost all countries making copies has no public limitation - whether the copy is private or public is irrelevant. IANAL, but I have had definite answers on these areas... Sam Barnett-Cormack -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: copyrightable APIs? (was RE: namespace protection compatible wit
In my view, an API is as much a collection of facts as your original message, as Stephen King's latest novel, etc. I think in most cases an API involves creative expression or at least some selection, arrangement or coordination of function names, parameter type(s) and return type(s) (of course I am not talking about the simple abstract concept of an API; I am talking about a set of developed APIs). Surely if an API is just one function then you have a de minimis problem. But let's take the Java API. Taking U.S. law as an example, I would think that after you take whatever material (functions, return types, parameter types, parameter names, etc.) that is not copyrightable (by virtue of, for example, the merger doctrine(the idea and expression merged into one and there is no other way of expressing it), the scenes a faire doctrine (only so many ways of expressing the idea) and being in the public domain) there would be a great deal of material left over that involved creative expression or at least serious selection, coordination, or arrangement. For copyright to attach only minimal originality is needed. I can't see the argument flying that the Java API is like a purely alphabetical white pages. I think the real question is not whether an API is copyrightable but how an API is infringed and what is a derivative work of an API. From: Forrest J Cavalier III<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: copyrightable APIs? (was RE: namespace protection compatible wit Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 07:50:06 -0400 How can you copyright an API? Isn't it simply a collection of facts? Perhaps you could copyright the formal parameter names, and certainly the documentation in a header file. But the facts of function name, return type(s) parameter type(s) are just facts. There is no creative expression involved. Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824 http://www.rocketaware.com/ has over 30,000 links to source, libraries, functions, applications, and documentation. Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: copyrightable APIs? (was RE: namespace protection compatible wit
I am not sure I see how 102(b) should exclude APIs from copyrightable subject matter as an absolute matter. Surely some aspects of an API may fail because of various doctrines such as merger, scenes a faire, etc. (viz. sqrt()) but I am not sure I see how a full set of APIs should be excluded per se. I find it hard to distinguish an API from a computer program - if APIs fail under 102(b) then shouldn't computer programs in general fail also because they comprise an idea, process, method, etc.? I see both as expressions, not the idea themselves. I think the tougher issue is infringement/derivative works (leave alone implied/express licenses, estoppels, etc.). Just some thoughts From: Rod Dixon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Angelo Schneider<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: copyrightable APIs? (was RE: namespace protection compatible wit Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:12:13 -0400 (EDT) This is the issue I was hinting at. I do not believe that as a general matter that APIs should be copyrightable under U.S. copyright law since section 102(b) of the Copyright Act should exclude APIs from copyright subject matter. Having said that, I admit the issue seems unresolved since both Microsoft and Sun Microsystems are two well known developers who claim copyright interests in APIs; Microsoft for Windows, and Sun for Java. Rod On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Angelo Schneider wrote: Hi! In Europe APIs are not copyright able. No idea about the US. However if you publich them in a book, the book of course is copyrighted. However you can not prevent anyone to write a software against a given API. Same is true for data formats. (In Europe dataformats e.g. a flat file format for a word processor are not copyright able) Regards, Angelo Forrest J Cavalier III wrote: -- Von: Forrest J Cavalier III[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Freitag, 20. April 2001 13:50:06 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: copyrightable APIs? (was RE: namespace protection compatible wit Diese Nachricht wurde automatisch von einer Regel weitergeleitet. How can you copyright an API? Isn't it simply a collection of facts? Perhaps you could copyright the formal parameter names, and certainly the documentation in a header file. But the facts of function name, return type(s) parameter type(s) are just facts. There is no creative expression involved. Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824 http://www.rocketaware.com/ has over 30,000 links to source, libraries, functions, applications, and documentation. -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467 Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: copyrightable APIs? (was RE: namespace protection compa
From: "Forrest J Cavalier III" Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: copyrightable APIs? (was RE: namespace protection compa Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:05:12 -0400 "Chloe Hoffman" wrote pages. I think the real question is not whether an API is copyrightable but how an API is infringed and what is a derivative work of an API. You admit that some parts of the API would not qualify as original. I don't believe that's what I said. I believe I said, with respect to U.S. law, that some parts may not qualify - just like some parts of any other work may not qualify - for copyright protection according to certain well-known doctrines. Infringement would therefore depend on what portions of the API are "original enough" to qualify under copyright law. Just like any other work. These APIs get published so that they can be used. To me that's not a statement against copyrightability - rather an issue of license Once the software is written that provides the API, it becomes a physical object which can be studied. Just as once a story is written or a house is built. It does not necessarily mean the story or design of the house can be infringed. It is pretty hard to argue that the facts of that physical object, including the exported interface, can never be expressed without infringing copyright. As I suggested, infringement I think is the nub of the question - not copyrightability. In my view, there is certainly a significant difference from an infringement perspective, assuming no express or implied license or other kind of estoppel, between writing a program accessing an interface and implementing a set of APIs (such as the Java API) - in my mind the former being much further away from infringement than the latter. Forrest (P.S. To Chloe Hoffman: If you must use MIME, can you at least post in text/plain? Thanks!) I hope that's fixed. Sorry. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: namespace protection compatible with the OSD?
In the U.S. at least, building a house from a blueprint is creating a copy of an architectural work - see the definition of an architectural work in s. 101 of the U.S. Copyright Act and other limitations in s. 120. If someone builds an unauthorized exact or substantially similar copy (i.e. a building according to the architectural work), it may be infringement (assuming access to the architectural work). The owner of an architectural work has the exclusive right to prepare derivative works (which of course can be licensed). As to the customs and conventions in the industry defining actual and implied licensing and ownershipthat's the story of extensive litigation (including numerous disputes between architects, home owners and builders). From: John Cowan<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Brian Behlendorf<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: Lawrence E. Rosen<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> , [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: namespace protection compatible with the OSD? Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:38:31 -0400 Brian Behlendorf wrote: Would you agree that if I took one of Shakespeare's plays and reworked it into a screenplay, or novel, that my work would be a derivative work? Throw in translating to Chinese for good measure. Throw in adding some extra scenes and characters to really flesh out my work, or to adapt it to a new culture. All of those things are making a derivative work, clearly. I think the idea of implementing an API is the same thing. And I think this is a much closer analogy than using the tax advice given by a tax book. The closest analogy is building a house from a blueprint. The house isn't a derivative work of the blueprint, or architects wouldn't need to get paid for drawing them -- they could sue the contractor for infringement. I am not a lawyer, but I'm getting uncomfortably familiar with too many things usually only lawyers have to worry about. Tell it, brother! -- There is / one art || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
From the U.S. Copyright Act: "ยง 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs 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, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner." Your mileage may vary in other countries. From: Justin Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Wired Article on the GPL Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 12:52:55 -0400 On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:57:34PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: Running the program is not part of the copyright rights-bundle: when you acquire the program sans EULA-style license, you are an owner of that copy, and you can run it because that is analogous to reading a book that you own. Usually, though, in order to run it you have to copy it into memory, and without a specific grant, you don't have the right to make that copy. I thought there was a court decision in the US which determined that copying into RAM was "fixation" in copyright law. It's not clear to me that you are entitled to copy a program into RAM just because you are the owner and have ordinary copy rights. It might be that there is some implicit right to copy a program into RAM for the purpose of executing it, if you own the program. Justin __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
