Re: Corel's apt frontend
From: Raul Miller <email@example.com>
> > > > But you do need a copy of dpkg or it won't work. So I don't
> > > > see how this can be a problem.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:54:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I understand that this definition of "modifies" is rather technical,
> > and thus non-intuitive, but I've provided plenty of legal quotes to back
> > up my position. Simply asserting that I'm wrong is silly, you need to
> > show some legal reference which superceeds the material which I've quoted.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 10:07:13PM -0500, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> Nintendo v. Galoob. Game Genie ceases to function when the Nintendo
> game software is removed, but is not a derivative work nor does it
> create a derivative work when used, according to the court.
> I'll dig up the full text of the decision if it'll help convince
> people in this argument.
Hmm... I can't find a copy... it would be great if you could.
Anyways, the copyright issue in Nintendo v. Galoob was on-screen
presentation, not computer program copyright (the game genie worked
by altering electrical signals not by running a program). And, yeah,
that was declared an example of fair use.
And, fair use for computer programs allows for the copying which happens
when the user executes the program. [Which seems to be the gist of the
point that most people have been trying to make to me.]
I can see that the Nintendo v. Galoob decision might cover the case where
the Corel front end is distributed without dpkg. Here, you could argue
that the front end is just a logical extension of fair use [copyright
law says that the copy of a program which is made when the program is
run or backed up is fair use.]
It's not guaranteed that a court would go along with this, but it
is plausible. [It would be much more plausible if the front end was
independently useful -- without requiring dpkg.]
However, I don't see that Nintendo v. Galoob covers the case where Corel
wants to distribute the front end with dpkg. You're not talking about
fair use any more but distributing a derived work. [And, as before, if
you can find anything that contradicts me I'd be glad to hear about it.]
Finally, the reason I'm making an issue of this: I think it's reasonable
for Ian to talk with Corel about the licensing of the Corel front end,
while other people have claimed that it's not.
I'm still convinced that this is a reasonable action on Ian's part.
[Especially since Corel is a Canadian company and Canada's treatment of
copyright law includes the moral right of integrity.]