Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Dennis Olvany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Johnathan Michaels hit on the next point I would like to make and
that is the distinction between patent and copyright. A method or
process may be patented, but the factual written procedure of such
may not be copyr
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Dennis Olvany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The concept of a fact obviously may not be copyrighted because it is
merely a concept. Barring descriptive literary devices, the facts may be
copied at will in their expressed form. A photo, being a descriptive
devi
facts are not eligible for copyright.
plain facts are not copyrightable, as you point out, their expression
certainly is.
The concept of a fact obviously may not be copyrighted because it is
merely a concept. Barring descriptive literary devices, the facts may be
copied at will in their exp
David Hoffman wrote:
Now, even if you're correct that Brett doesn't have a valid
copyright (which he does) and that unspecified entities unknown own
the copyright to the article (which they don't), we still have the
same problem: FreeBSD claiming to own something they don't, and
David Hoffman wrote:
Update: their website now attributes copyright to both HouFUG AND Brett.
This is despite the fact that Brett seems to be the sole owner of the work.
I'm not sure why this community feels it can disregard rights to
intellectual property, especially when it produces so much on
I had a look at http://www.houfug.org/help/install_freebsd.htm and I am
afraid that you will find this article is not eligible for copyright. It
constitutes neither an artistic nor literary work. The article conveys
only facts and facts are not eligible for copyright.
_
