Michael K. Edwards wrote: [...] > I will grant you Lawrence Lessig even though a few minutes' Googling
http://www.google.com/search?q=Lessig+GPL+insane yields http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2005/02/thoughts_on_sof.html Quite refreshing. ;-) <quote> Similar concerns from an another lawyer: What composes a derivative work of software under copyright law is one of almost complete opacity. Add that to the ambiguous language of the GPL, referring only in part to derivative works, and the result is absolute opacity, or in your words, absolute vagueness, or in Lessig's words, insane complexity. Is the SFLC going to legally clarify this issue of "derivative", especially in cases where they raise the spectre of criminal infringement charges? Will the SFLC create some guidelines do provide notice which combinations are subject to copyright and which ones are per-empted by patents? I doubt so. They like using copyright laws that help their cause (102a), and like ignoring copyright laws that hurt their cause (102b). After all, ignoring the law is one thing anarchists like. To quote Eben Moglen: This use of intellectual property rules to create a commons in cyberspace is the central institutional structure enabling the anarchist triumph. http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/anarchism.html I would like to know why law-abiding companies like IBM and Intel, which fund the OSDL which funds the SFLC, why such law-abiding companies are funding those espousing anarchist goals? Are they going to create a defense fund for software pirates next - pirates are anarchists as well? </quote> Seriously (apropos "per-empted by patents"), see also http://www.innovationlaw.org/lawforum/pages/heer.doc (The Case against Copyright Protection of Non-literal Elements of Computer Software) <quote> Altai has been viewed as a landmark decision as it incorporates many traditional principles of copyright law into a single analytical framework seemingly suitable for computer software. However, when honestly applied, the abstraction-filtration- comparison test eliminates protection for computer programs by entirely filtering out not only the individual elements of computer programs such as software objects but also the compilation of selection and arrangement expression that is the program's structure, since both are designed with efficiency in mind. [...] It is more appropriate to consider the software objects of a computer program as analogous to the gears, pulleys, and levers of a mechanical invention, as by its very nature, the design of computer software is intended to optimize functionality by making a program run faster, use less memory, or be easier for the programmer to modify. When viewed as a collection of software objects combined in such a way as to optimally perform various tasks, the design of computer software closely resembles the design of functional devices protected by patent law rather than the non-functional, non-literal elements of creative authorial works protected under copyright law. </quote> regards, alexander.