>>>>> Svante Signell <svante.sign...@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 09:07 +0100, Richard Braun wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 06:51:29AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
[…] >>> - you cannot commit this code unless I agree to sign the copyright >>> papers for libc (which I of course will when asked for). This is a >>> derived work of mine. Otherwise it has to stay as a Debian patch. >> Really ? That's what you choose to say here ? Have you at least >> looked at the changes he made ? They're really not much like what >> you've sent us. > I know, but it's still a derived work from my efforts. If I hadn't > worked on this, the current state wouldn't be as it is now. It seems like a common misconception that even the “paid professionals” sometimes fall into. The point is, however, that the copyright law is concerned with /representations/ (i. e., code, in this case), not /ideas/ (algorithms, etc.) Clearly, without Unix being available, GNU wouldn't exist. This doesn't make the latter fall under the copyright of the former. Also, there're the cases when the code in question is not copyrightable at all, as not being a “creative work.” For instance, when writing a device driver, there may be certain procedures prescribed by the device's own specification, that allow for virtually only a single implementation. If that's the case, the code for such an implementation may be non-copyrightable. PS. Note, however, that I haven't reviewed the code being discussed, and thus have no opinion on whether any of the Svante's code has made its way (perhaps with trivial modifications) into the Samuel's patch, or not. […] -- FSF associate member #7257