Fwd: Software conforming to spec breaches copyright in written specification]
Posted today to CNI-Copyright. Australian law. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Debian GNU/Linux rocks! http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0 Interesting case Australian case recently decided on whether software conforming to a written specification breaches the copyright in that specification. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2000/1273.html Court headnotes appear below. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - copyright - whether written specifications for the operation of poker machines could be original literary works - whether the specifications were a product of the applicant's work, or simply reflected a common industry standard INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - copyright - dramatic works - whether written specifications for the operation of poker machines could constitute original dramatic works - whether the video display could constitute a cinematograph film INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - copyright - infringement - whether respondent's poker machines infringed the applicant's copyright in the written specifications for its poker machines - where the games were substantially similar - where the respondent pursued a policy of collecting and analysing competitors' games WORDS AND PHRASES - "scenario" - "choreography"- "cinematograph film" - "dramatic work" Copyright Act 1968 ss 10(1), 13 and 31 -- | Tim Arnold-Moore, Ph.D., LL.B., B.Sc. (Hons) | Postal address: Multimedia Database Systems, RMIT | GPO Box 2476V | Melbourne 3001 | AUSTRALIA | Tel: +61 3 9925 4116 | Fax: +61 3 9925 4098 | simul iustus et peccator PGP signature
Re: Another pass at redrafting the Artistic License
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, Ben Tilly wrote: My view of "proper" OSS and FS licenses is that they grant additional permissions to the user beyond those offered by copyright, but take away none of the rights of the user that copyright allows. You can give but you can't take away. Then this clearly is not a "proper" FS license. Basically it says, "If you want to play in our sandbox, you have to follow Larry's rules. If you just want to play with our toys, go ahead as long as you don't mess with our sandbox." Perhaps I didn't clarify myself. I find it perfectly acceptable for a permission to have conditions. IANAL though, and I could be completely off base here. Basically, one can say "you have permission to play in our sandbox so long as you follow our rules, but if you don't follow our rules then the law says that you can't play in other people's sandboxes anyway." A license along the lines of "you can do x, y and x provided that you also do 1, 2 and 3" may technically be a contract, but it doesn't require contract law for enforcement. One problem with contract/agreement "based" licenses is what happens if someone doesn't agree? If you are unable to protect the software with copyright, then you have no recourse if someone disagrees with the contract. I think the GPL got it right when it said "These actions are prohibited by law [copyright] if you do not accept this License". There are two items that do not fall under copyright law in there. The first is that you really want something somewhere saying that, "Yes, all developers really agreed to our ground-rules." Doesn't have to be here, I just think it is a convenient place to put it and avoid paperwork. Okay, fair enough... -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org
Re: Another pass at redrafting the Artistic License
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, Ben Tilly wrote: I have been told by lawyers that you can say it, but you cannot necessarily enforce the rules. For instance I was just told (and find believable) that statements about, "You cannot represent this as your own unless it is, and cannot the copyright holders and contributer's names for endorsement without express written permission" cannot be enforced as part of a copyright. It can be as part of a contract. Fascinating. It's as if misrepresentation and fraud are not crimes! Everyday I find more reasons to be thankful I am not a part of the legal profession. -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org
