In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Code written to interoperate with other code is not a derivative work
of that code by the definition given in the law.
The courts have ruled differently for works of fiction designed to
interoperate with other fiction
Why aren't the trolls denouncing the judge in the model railroad
case as insane, drunk, etc?
-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today summarily
declared that 17 U.S.C. § 103(b) is null and void.
http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/cafc-pi-1/08-1001.pdf
Section 103 of the Copyright Act states:
§ 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative
rjack wrote:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today
summarily declared that 17 U.S.C. § 103(b) is null and void.
Sucks to be you, doesn't it? First Germany, now the U.S.
Oh, and exactly as I predicted, the proliferation of works
licensed as open source was very much
Hyman Rosen wrote:
rjack wrote:
This ruling has no precedental value whatsoever.
Facts are stubborn things
You will come to regret your choice of signature.
Facts *are* stubborn things. It is a fact that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled:
Although
