> 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.
Wow, you are
Dennis Olvany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > You are wrong. The method or process is patentable. A written
> > description of the method or process is copyrightable.
>
> howto change oil
> 1. remove oil cap
> 2. drain oil
> 3. remove filter
> 4.
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 copyrighted. I'll
On Sunday 18 June 2006 21:54, David Hoffman wrote:
> However, most of what you wrote is incorrect. Are you seriously trying to
> tell us that the author's name is 'Brett Soupman'? That seems like a
> pseudonym at best. It's hardly clear he's given you permission to republish
> the work, let alone
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 copyrighted. I'll follow up with some e
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
device, is cop
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
> device, is copyrightable. Consideri
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
Dennis Olvany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 elig
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
-- Forwarded message --
From: David Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Jun 18, 2006 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: Serious breach of copyright -- First post
To: Dennis Olvany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
While your mocking post is certainly intended to bolster your point, it
instead bolsters mine.
On 6/18/06, David Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/18/06, Dennis Olvany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> ...facts are not eligible for copyright.
>
> > I'm afraid you're incorrect. The work in question is indeed
> copyrightable
> > under the Berne Convention, which many countries have ra
bsd-questions@freebsd.org;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; thisdayislong; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Subject:* Re: Fwd: Serious breach of copyright -- First post
On 6/18/06, Dennis Olvany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I had a look at http://www.houfug.org/help/install_freebsd.htm and I am
> afraid that you
ED]; thisdayislong; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fwd: Serious breach of copyright -- First post
On 6/18/06, Dennis Olvany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 copy
On 6/18/06, Dennis Olvany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 no
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.
_
Joe Holden wrote:
> David Hoffman wrote:
>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: David Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Jun 18, 2006 8:38 PM
>> Subject: Re: Serious breach of copyright -- First post
>> To: Brett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> I think a formal apology should be issue
David Hoffman wrote:
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: David Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Jun 18, 2006 8:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Serious breach of copyright -- First post
> To: Brett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I think a formal apology should be issued by the infringers.
>
> Hasn't
-- Forwarded message --
From: David Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Jun 18, 2006 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: Serious breach of copyright -- First post
To: Brett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I think a formal apology should be issued by the infringers.
Hasn't this gone on long enough?
On 6/18/
19 matches
Mail list logo
