On 6/18/06, David Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/18/06, Dennis Olvany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> ...facts are not eligible for copyright. > > > I'm afraid you're incorrect. The work in question is indeed > copyrightable > > under the Berne Convention, which many countries have ratified, > including > > the United States, where the content is hosted. The United States, as > well > > as many other countries, also have national laws which allow this work > > to be > > copyrighted. > > At best, the article may be considered a derivative work of the > described software/hardware and therefore the intellectual property of > the respective manufacturers. > First you say only 'literary or artistic' works, and not 'facts' (hint: the article was more than just facts), are elligible for copyright, and now you say that, not only are 'facts' elligible for copyright, but that they hold such a strong copyright that works which refer to facts published elsewhere are necessarily derivative and are not elligible for a seperate copyright by the writer. Which is it? You can't have both. And, really, you can't have either: there are a multitude of works that are 'derivative' in the sense you describe, yet hold perfectly valid copyrights. Don't believe me? Try hosting a bunch of O'Reilly books on a site hosted in a country that respects copyright. Now, even if you're correct that Brett doesn't have a valid copyright (which he does) and that unspecified entities unknown own the copyright to the article (which they don't), we still have the same problem: FreeBSD claiming to own something they don't, and not even attributing it to its true authors.
_______________________________________________ freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
