Re: Copyrighting facts (was: Re: Can you alter the MIT license?)
Hi Seth, very good explanaition! Angelo Seth David Schoen wrote: Bruce Perens writes: From: Justin Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED] How far can you go with this notion that you cannot copyright a fact? Can you copyright the arrangement of chess men on a chess board? The arrangement of chess pieces is not the same sort of concrete fact as "Woodhaven Rd. runs between these two points". The strange paradox of copyright is that facts which result from creative intellectual effort are nonetheless facts. For example, the last character of the main text of Douglas Hofstadter's _Godel, Escher, Bach_ is an "r". The second character of (l'havdil) Microsoft Word 97 is a "Z". These are objective facts. In the same vein, I could look up the six hundred twenty-sixth note of Andrew Lloyd Webber's _Requiem_ (assuming a standard ordering of the instrumental voices within a work and the notes within an instrumental line). The identity of that note would also be an objective fact. These particular facts are not copyrightable (because of fair use), but the co-ordinated public mention of a sufficiently large number of them would still be a copyright violation. E.g. The first character of _Neuromancer_ is a "T". The second character of _Neuromancer_ is an "h". The third character of _Neuromancer_ is an "e". The fourth character of _Neuromancer_ is a space. The fifth character of _Neuromancer_ is an "s". The sixth character of _Neuromancer_ is a "k". [...] If I continued this sequence for a little while longer, I would be guilty of a copyright violation. How is that sequence of objective facts essentially different from the following sequence of objective facts? The elevation, in feet, of Alameda, California, is 30. The elevation, in feet, of Berkeley, California, is 150. The elevation, in feet, of Cupertino, California, is 236. The elevation, in feet, of Daly City, California, is 300. The elevation, in feet, of Emeryville, California, is 15. The elevation, in feet, of Fremont, California, is 53. [...] Presumably, the information contained in one is the result of organized human creative effort, where the other is not. (It _is_ the result of human effort, in the form of the USGS GNIS.) So, can I copyright the following? 1aef 9a8e 707e 8274 391d 6de4 3c76 da65 bd62 d2bc 4635 c915 141b 3a33 2fc2 7baa 7be7 7f3d 0cb5 f460 5adb d52d 1231 274e 2f02 a75e 7cc8 faa5 f2fe ad36 110b ba02 fe23 17eb e15f 484a 776d 6a3a 08a1 686f a329 9593 58a0 54b4 6f48 75ea bc61 bd3e 90a2 6d76 03f5 a7ab b45e 3d4b 8b6a 8480 964b 614a 0c38 68c2 718b 53ce a39d 89f9 7109 66ed 6000 591e 6006 5e26 9b4b 7143 950a 2272 531d a0cd ccc9 9797 3670 7828 If you are the author. You have the copyright on that. Why? You could claim this as art! How would you proofe that its art? Well if someone copies it you have the context in which he copied it. If he tried to sell this great art, than it is, even if noone else recognizes it that way. Furthr more: Your code above is yust a code. That means how you code your informatin or art is not important for the fact that it is copyrighted. Even if I crypt an excerpt of Bach I would violate propably some rights. Ok, better: I encrypt a song of Sting (he still lives), noone would understnd the coding. But it was his work, so I violate his rights. Do you need to know what it is first to say whether I can copyright it? No, it must be (not even intellectual) work, done by a human or initiated by a human. However some works are to trivial (see the/YOUR law for those exceptions). I don't think it's possible to consider the copyright system reasonable, logical, intuitive, or founded on readily comprehensible rules. Certainly the idea that "you can't copyright facts" won't help someone who desires to report the fact that the text of Microsoft Word is... (well, that person is not myself). -- Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/| have leisure; for perhaps you will http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF)| not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 Best Regards, Angelo - Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
Re: Can you alter the MIT license? (2)
Hi Bruce, Hi all, Bruce Perens wrote: From: "Scott Johnston" [EMAIL PROTECTED] A better example is Bruce Perens GPL'ing of the public domain TIGER map database last year from the US Census Bureau. I am skating on thin ice on that one because it's a collection of facts and not in itself copyrightable under current law. Thus you should not use The facts it self are not copyrightable. But someone collected that facts and placed them on "paper". This paper is copyrighted by the author. It does not matter if the paper is in fact a CD or a database. it as an example. I can hold a copyright on certain aspects of the data, such as its representation, but I can't copyright the fact that a street runs between two coordinates. Thanks Bruce Hint to derivation, or derived work: Transforming some sheets of paper with facts on it into a database is also a derived work, like transforming some source code into some other source code. Regards, Angelo - Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
Re: Can you alter the MIT license? (1)
Hi Bruce! Hi all! Problem in this thread is that most people seem not to realize that copyright is only a smal part out of a set of rights which belong to a more comprehencive right. see below! Best Regards, Angelo Bruce Perens wrote: From: Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] Even public domain isn't your copyright [um.. unless you wrote it, of course]. You're a bit confused about public domain. Please read this entire message carefully. Sorry Bruce, you are wrong. The former author, your replay applies to, is (more) right. Placing a work in the public domain is not the same as granting broad rights to that work. If you place on your work the notice "I place this work in the public domain", you abandon your copyright rights Nope, you cant abondon your "copyrights". Clarification: The mother of those rights which are often called "copyright" is a right which is called (translated from german) "creators rights". The creator of a given subject has "rights of an author". This is called (translated from german) a natural law. Or a divine law. This can't be removed, given up or even transfered. entirely. You literally no longer have a copyright on that work at all. That is different than saying "Copyright 1999 Bruce Perens, Do anything you want as long as you preserve my copyright notice." For example, someone can create a derived work of public-domain material and copyright it, To some extend, yes. and can place any license terms they wish on it, and need not attribute the work to you! Yes, the original stuff is still available as the original stuff. But this would not be true for a picture for e.g. Propably some one could clarify the term "public domain". Especialy in contrast to copyright. I do not believe that a work which is put into pd dos not have a copyright. I'm of the impression that the author of a pd work grants everybody to copy and to ditribute his work. Thats something different. Claiming for a business advantage, to be the author of a public-domain work may be fraud. That's criminal law, however, not copyright law. Copyright law does not require you to put proper author attribution on public-domain work. Copyrights can be explicitly assigned to others, bought and sold as commodities. But they can't be given up entirely... Thats right! Better if you reference "creators rights" here, than it's true: they can't be given up. They belong to you like your DNS, a lawyer once telled me it sticks to you like your name, even if you change your name, your old schoole mates will know you. Like that you will always be known as "the creator" of the specific work (at least to some god). This action of creation can never be reversed or made undone. And this action grants you some rights, one of this rights is the right to copy and distribute (the so called copyright). OK, you dared me. I abandon my copyright rights on this message and place it in the public domain. Bruce Perens, 15-November-1999. It's entirely my right to do that. Yes it's your right to do that, but this action would be void if you would mean "creators rights"! If you see "the copyright" as a part of the creators/authors rights about his crafted work, you can public give up to enforce that right. Or you can public grant that right to the community (-public domain). 'Public domain', literally, applies to something upon which there is no copyright at all. This would be something which has no attributable There does nothing exist build by man which has no copyright (except the exceptions in the law, but this is not a principal difference) and bears some originality. author, or more likely a long-dead author (copyright thus expired). Or the copyright owner has intentionaly placed the work in the public domain. In particular, the GPL says that you must make available the source of the whole work. Now this is an additional restriction on top the the MIT one, but it's not in conflict with the MIT one - it doesn't ask you to do anything you aren't allowed to do. Right. Current popular interpretation is that you can't, if your software is 'BSD-with-advertising-clause'. If you don't have the adv-clause, or you're happy to give it up, then you can GPL parts of your software, and include other peoples GPL'ed software. But you must satisfy the terms of the GPL (which you are not likely to find a problem). Note also that you can issue _any_number_of_licenses_ on software as long as you own its copyright. Want to put the same work under GPL, BSD, X11, Artistic, MPL, and so on? Do all at once. Producers of derived works and users get to pick a license, they can't mix and match terms from more than one. Thanks Bruce Regards, Angelo - Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24
Re: Can you alter the MIT license? (1)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:09:44 + From: Angelo Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] The creator of a given subject has "rights of an author". In English this is often called ``moral rights.'' Moral rights do not exist in English and American law. They exist in French law, and presumably German law. I have no idea whether they will exist in EU law. Ian
RE: Can you abandon copyright?
I think there might be a confusion in the use of language here. It seems quite possible to abandon a copyright. However, that does not make it available for anyone else to have. Consider the case where a copyright expires. This puts the work in the public domain (ignoring the prospect of some other form of protection). It does not mean the work can be appropriated and copyrighted by another. It does mean that none of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder any longer apply, and no one else has them either. Under current U.S. law, there is no longer any notice requirement and it is difficult to simply lose a copyright. However, one could take steps to intentionally place a work in the public domain. I think it would be very difficult to recant and claim infringement thereafter. I certainly wouldn't want to try it. I just read where the author's rights that do exist in current U.S. law are viewed by some as distinct from copyright, and it would seem that they work independently from abandonment of copyright. They apparently don't apply to literary works, including software, regardless. Similar rights arise in other parts of U.S. law and in common law, so it may not be an issue, except with regard to international copyright arrangements. I don't want to minimize that, just suggest that abandoning the subdividable exclusive rights that apply under pure copyright is possible in the United States. Any creator's rights don't seem to interfere with that, and vice versa. If there is any doubt, an open license would be a clean alternative, since some of these licenses do preserve author's rights as terms of the license. (I'm thinking of the requirement for preservation of the copyright notice and requirement that derivatives be clearly differentiated and not ascribed to the original copyright holder.) Where I have been reading is in section 2.2, "What is 'public domain?'" in Terry Carroll's FAQ on copyright. This is consistent with what other sources provide. The last sentence is pretty clear, and Carroll speculates what it probably takes to abandon copyright, now that omission of a copyright notice is insufficient. I have the sense that there has been no legal test, but who would want to test it (and have standing), and would a court be willing to hear it? I have no idea. It seems like too small a matter. Carroll, Terry. Copyright Resource Page. published on the web at http://www.aimnet.com/~carroll/copyright/faq-home.html. 1999 July 16. Includes links to Carroll's extensive January 1994 6-part FAQ on copyright, plus an addendum (1998 November 6). This is entirely with respect to U.S. Copyright law. -- Dennis -- Dennis E. Hamilton InfoNuovo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel. +1-206-779-9430 (gsm) fax. +1-425-793-0283 http://www.infonuovo.com -Original Message- From: Angelo Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 07:10 To: Bruce Perens Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Can you alter the MIT license? (1) Hi Bruce! Hi all! [ ... ] Nope, you cant abondon your "copyrights". Clarification: The mother of those rights which are often called "copyright" is a right which is called (translated from german) "creators rights". The creator of a given subject has "rights of an author". This is called (translated from german) a natural law. Or a divine law. This can't be removed, given up or even transfered. [ ... ] Regards, Angelo - Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
RE: Can you abandon copyright?
I think there might be a confusion in the use of language here. Yes, copyright is distinct form moral rights (which as someone pointed out is the english language term rather than creator's rights). It seems quite possible to abandon a copyright. Yes, copyrights are completely assignable AFAIK. Moral rights are not assignable at all. ... I just read where the author's rights that do exist in current U.S. law are viewed by some as distinct from copyright, and it would seem that they work independently from abandonment of copyright. Yes, in that "author's rights" appears to be a synonym for moral rights. US Courts and legislation do not support the concept. There is significant US case law rejecting the concept (IANAL, but I read all these summaries on some US legal site). However, it is important to be clear that moral rights and copyright are two different animals. iang
Re: Copyrighting facts (was: Re: Can you alter the MIT license?)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There's a great deal of information about copyright and copyrightable subject matter available from the Library of Congress Office of Copyright. It is probably all on the web too. Oh, I don't mean to suggest that there aren't standards or that they aren't published, just that the scope of copyright isn't intuitive (or logical, or accurately summarized by straightforward rules). And there are strange paradoxes and unclear dividing lines everywhere. I think, for this conversation, the key thing that applies, in the area of literary works (which software once fell into, but I haven't kept track of recent revisions), is that copyright applies to original expression. Caselaw in the United States has had an interesting time trying to explain the meaning of "expression". :-) -- Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/| have leisure; for perhaps you will http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF)| not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
Re: Can you alter the MIT license?
Bruce Perens wrote: From: "Scott Johnston" [EMAIL PROTECTED] A better example is Bruce Perens GPL'ing of the public domain TIGER map database last year from the US Census Bureau. I am skating on thin ice on that one because it's a collection of facts and not in itself copyrightable under current law. Thus you should not use it as an example. I can hold a copyright on certain aspects of the data, such as its representation, but I can't copyright the fact that a street runs between two coordinates. Can you provide a reference that explains this? As I understand copyright law, you most certainly can copyright your particular collection of measurements that make up your map database. It certainly is true that you cannot stop me from going and making the same measurements and reporting my version. However, you could probably stand up in court and say "He must have violated my copyright because it is inconceivable that all of his measurements should be exactly the same as all of mine, since measurement is subject to error. Thus, he has copied my work in its entirety, and has violated my copyright." alex
Re: Draft 1 of the OpenDesk.com Public Source License
On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 07:56:02PM -0800, Arandir wrote: On Wed, 17 Nov 1999, David Starner wrote: This is equivalent to forking the project at the start, unless you add an addendum to the GPL that stipulates that GPL contributors permit you to take their changes and re-release them under the APSL clone. Of course, then it's not GPL anymore. It's possible that it will get forked. Of course, that's possible with any license that's not a copyleft. Copyleft can get forked just as easily. Compare GNU emacs versus XEmacs. Not just as easily. RMS could, at any time, merge in any changes from XEmacs to GNU Emacs. He just choses not to. (He has his reasons, but it is his choice.) With a copyleft, you can always merge in their changes if you chose to. (Please don't CC on lists. Thanks.) -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] I see no trend at all, except toward women playing mean and ugly sociopaths who are good at killing and who enjoy dark powers. Maybe it's just my friends? -- Dr. Kromm, on who plays what type of character in RPGs
