Re: Get ready....

1999-04-14 Thread Arkin


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 From: Arkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Copyright was invented to cover literary work and protect the authors of
  literary work. Legal documents are not literary works. There are so many
  ways you can express the same contractual agreement. Thus, you may
  freely copy all portions of the GPL that are strictly legal clauses.
 
 That might be true in Israel, but not here.

This is true all over the world with only subtle differences. Copyright
laws are very similar between nations and automatically apply across
borders by international treaties.

  The GPL is, however, subject to trademark restrictions
 
 No, it is not. GPL is not a trademark. If you don't believe me, ask Richard
 Stallman.

The GPL is a trademark. It is not a registered trademark because it was
never registered. However, the mere fact that it is associated with a
specific license and known in its field makes it a trademark. This is
true in the US, as trademark are not shared internationally.

Arkin

 
 Bruce



Re: Copyright

1999-04-14 Thread Arkin

Copyright laws apply to the actual source code (and thus binary) of the
software because it is a literary work, see the test below. If I set on
the task of writing a spreadsheet and end up with Excel, what are the
chances that I was copying Excel one for one?

On the other hand, I might write it all anew, but attempt to mimick some
aspects, like the user interface. This issue is still not clearly
resolved, and is derived from laws protecting design, which are
different than text (the actual code).

Last, there are laws that protect an assembly of works, even if these
works are not protected by copyright. For example, if I publish a
collection of all the works of Shakespear finished on odd years, I can
claim copyright to this particular collection, but not the works
themselves.

As far as algorithms go, neither is good enough. You cannot copyright
the source, because there might be a different way of writing the
algorithm which does not look alike. You cannot copyright the design,
because there is no recognition of algorithms as design. The only course
of action is patent. That is why so many software products are protected
by patent.

The change from literature to non-literature is subject to a very simple
test. Suppose the two of us set to write a story about a shared
experience. We would end up with completely different texts, unless one
of us copied. But if we attempted to write a shopping list for computer
parts, we would probably end up with a very similar list.

Im the first case, each one is contributing unique experience, knowledge
and skill, and thus creating a work that must be protected. In the
second case, there is nothing unique and there are so many ways of
writing the same shopping list.

  This is true all over the world with only subtle differences. Copyright
  laws are very similar between nations and automatically apply across
  borders by international treaties.
 
 In what way are legal documents different from programs (programs are,
 or were initially, covered by virtue of being literature)?  At what
 point does a piece of writing change from literature to non-literature
 under the scheme you have?
 
 --
 Mark Brown  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
 http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
 EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/