Re: Legal issues with haskell-unix-time

[vheuser]

The functions themselves might be subject to design patent, but they are not 
subject to copyright (in the US.)

Only the *particular expression* of a creative work is subject to copyright.
The code sample implementing the functions is *the work* copyrighted.

Seems like three choices:
1. Drop the copyrighted code section altogether
2. Find or create an equivalent code not derived from the prior work
3. Get a special license from the copyright holder.

Vince Heuser
Louisville KY  USA




- Original Message - 
From: "Eloi" <entfe...@gmail.com>

To: <debian-legal@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 3:19 AM
Subject: Re: Legal issues with haskell-unix-time


El 24/05/16 a les 12:36, Dmitry Bogatov ha escrit:

There is 'cbits/conv.c' in 'haskell-unix-time' source package, which
is probably is of same copyright, as haskell code (BSD-3-clause),
but there is part of it, that is explicitly marked as all-rights-reserved.
No email is provided. This troublesome part is only for portability on
Solaris, and is not used on GNU/Linux systems.

What is the best way to deal with situation? I know, there is 
Files-Excludes:

clause in debian/copyright, but what to do with part of file?

For your convenience, offending file is attached, but you probably
interested in whole package.



Just a side question: Are these funcions even copyrightable? The is_leap
function is quite trivial, and the typical exercise for a programming
student; the timegm is a conversion from a tm struct to an unix time
which could even be reimplemented with no great effort.

Re: Legal issues with haskell-unix-time

[Ben Finney]

Eloi  writes:

> Just a side question: Are these funcions even copyrightable?

Copyright is not a thing done to works; it exists automatically, from
the moment a work exists in fixed form. (From this unfortunate fact,
comes many of the thorny issues of making works free.)

I assume you're asking something like “does copyright law restrict
recipients of a work consisting entirely of these functions?”

> The is_leap function is quite trivial, and the typical exercise for a
> programming student; the timegm is a conversion from a tm struct to an
> unix time which could even be reimplemented with no great effort.

The question of “does copyright apply?” varies significantly by
jurisdiction, and across years, and across case law.

One common rule of thumb to tell whether copyright might obtain in a
work is: was there creative decision-making involved in generating the
work?

If the work could feasibly be expressed in various ways, then any given
expression may be considered – by whichever copyright jurisdiction
decides the hypothetical case in the future – to be a creative work.

-- 
 \ “Oh, I realize it's a penny here and a penny there, but look at |
  `\  me: I've worked myself up from nothing to a state of extreme |
_o__)  poverty.” —Groucho Marx |
Ben Finney

Re: Legal issues with haskell-unix-time

[Eloi]

El 24/05/16 a les 12:36, Dmitry Bogatov ha escrit:
> There is 'cbits/conv.c' in 'haskell-unix-time' source package, which
> is probably is of same copyright, as haskell code (BSD-3-clause),
> but there is part of it, that is explicitly marked as all-rights-reserved.
> No email is provided. This troublesome part is only for portability on
> Solaris, and is not used on GNU/Linux systems.
>
> What is the best way to deal with situation? I know, there is Files-Excludes:
> clause in debian/copyright, but what to do with part of file?
>
> For your convenience, offending file is attached, but you probably
> interested in whole package.
>

Just a side question: Are these funcions even copyrightable? The is_leap
function is quite trivial, and the typical exercise for a programming
student; the timegm is a conversion from a tm struct to an unix time
which could even be reimplemented with no great effort.

Re: Legal issues with haskell-unix-time

[Paul Wise]

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:

> There is 'cbits/conv.c' in 'haskell-unix-time' source package, which
> is probably is of same copyright, as haskell code (BSD-3-clause),
> but there is part of it, that is explicitly marked as all-rights-reserved.
> No email is provided. This troublesome part is only for portability on
> Solaris, and is not used on GNU/Linux systems.

I would suggest sending upstream a patch that copies the version from
one of the BSDs, which would probably be BSD licensed, or the version
from glibc.

> What is the best way to deal with situation? I know, there is Files-Excludes:
> clause in debian/copyright, but what to do with part of file?

You could exclude the whole file and add a copy without the bad part
via a patch.

> For your convenience, offending file is attached, but you probably
> interested in whole package.

Now the Debian mailing list archives are illegally distributing the code.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise