Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> But the extension makes no sense without being put into place. > > Copyright law does not require "sense" from a copyrighted work. > A copyrighted work is a piece of text. The author of a computer > program acquires copyright in the work as it is written, whether > or not it "works", whether or not it is ever executed.
Sure. But it does not mean that the work is necessarily free from the copyright of others. >> If something clearly is useless as a separate entity, and is >> exclusively intended for a combined use, than pretending its >> separateness will not convince anybody. > > There is no need for pretense. Copyright is not about whether or how > things work, it is about text. The author of the text of a program > acquires copyright to the program. That the text can or must be bound > with another program in order to function is not relevant to > copyright. There have been cases where secondary literature, or spinoffs or continuations have been prohibited on the base of copyright laws. Things are not as pretty as you'd like them to be. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
