On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 16:49, Fedor Zuev wrote: > And for Someone will be much harder to prove that document X > is not a software, if Someone two months earlier call X a software, > say, in the mailing list. :-) Not really. First of all, I just checked: The word "Software" is used once in US copyright law (Title 17), in the sentence " Not later than three years after the date of the enactment of the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990,..." In other words, we can redefine software to mean the same thing a gerbil with no effect. Second, "computer program" is used instead. But it's defined in Sec. 101. Searching for "computer program" shows a single significant restriction based on being a computer program, and several less. The only one is that like a sound recording, you can't charge to lease it without the copyright holder's permission, exempting certain things like firmware and video games. Sec 109(b)1 Your laws may be different. If they are substantially worse, I suggest fixing them. > > With assumption that DFSG given by gods, exists in the > vacuum and discussed by cyborgs? Yes. Well, since you've proposed no actual amendments to the DFSG... > >What is copyrightable in a printed book? > > > Text :-) > > This text not written by human, it printed by machine, but > it still copyrighted. No. The abtract, not physical, "text" is copyrighted. That actual glyphs on the paper, at least in the US, can not be. I assure you that in _any_ copyright regime, were you to change the font, the copyright still applies.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part