On Mar 30, 2005, at 10:19 AM, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
But once you filter out the idea (also not copyrightable, see Title 17, Sec. 102(b)), I suspect you'll find that the expression of that idea is quite limited by the technical and policy requirements of the info file.
True, but that is not the case here. We are not extracting the ideas from .info files and creating new ones; we are copying and distributing others' work as-is. This is what I am saying is covered by copyright law.
When there are limited numbers of ways to express something, the idea and the expression are the same, and there is no copyright protection (as copyright can not protect an idea). This is the "merger doctrine".
And yes, having licensing on info files clearly given by their authors would be a very good thing.
Now I'm really confused. If I understand your point correctly, that .info files have no protection under copyright law, then what need is there for licensing them?
Having the author say "you can use this" is never a bad thing. And (see my original message), I believe that portions of some fink files are copyrightable.
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by Demarc: A global provider of Threat Management Solutions. Download our HomeAdmin security software for free today! http://www.demarc.com/Info/Sentarus/hamr30 _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
