Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
On 5/21/05, Michael K. Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/21/05, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
> > After looking at this for a bit, I'm thinking that Quagga is based on
> > libsnmp and that libsnmp is based on libssl.
>
> Not in any copyright sense whatsoever. And what, every Perl script is
> "based on" Perl? Every Lotus 1-2-3 macro is "based on" Lotus? Come
> back to Earth, please.
It's very clear that "based on" is the essence of what copyright
protects in the case of derivative works, and providing
supposed counter examples which haven't been heard in
court doesn't make that go away.
> > > The fact that they are independent works of authorship, gathered into
> > > a collection, matters.
> >
> > How could Quagga have been written without libsnmp?
> >
> > How could libsnmp have been written without libssl?
> >
> > [Answer: they'd each have been very different.]
>
> Idea / expression dichotomy. Deal with it.
And I'm not saying that the ideas are copyrighted.
> > I find it hard to imagine a court case about whether or not contract law
> > is the only way to create a copyright license.
> >
> > I find it easy to imagine that a court would be only concerned about
> > determining the facts about copyright license in the context of
> > specific cases.
>
> This isn't a point of fact, it's a point of law, and a very, very well
> settled one. I am done debating with you on this topic, I think.
I'm not sure you've ever understood my point.
Or perhaps, you've understood my point and dismissed it
as too obvious to be worth discussing.
Anyways, I've no objections if you want to drop this
discussion.
> > Ultimately, though, what a court is typically concerned with
> > in cases involving copyright claims is whether the copyright
> > is being infringed (and, if it is, whether that matters, legally).
> >
> > Informally, it's convenient to talk about things without trying to
> > mimic the exact path a court might follow ever time a new concept
> > is discussed. If we're going to sidetrack on every fine minute
> > point, we'll be forever stuck on issues like "Louisiana has used
> > civil law instead of common law" or "Judge Bea isn't likely to
> > care about that kind of precedent".
>
> If you are saying that you want to ignore the law, you are (I hope) on
> the wrong forum.
I think there's a lot of ground between "getting bogged down in
the little details" and "ignoring the law".
(Except, in a sense, "getting bogged down in the little details" can
be a way of ignoring the law (when the big important concepts
get neglected).)
> > > > I don't have at hand the claims of Progress Software, but Saris
> > > > clearly was informed of this issue.
> > >
> > > Hmm. I missed that. But in any case, is there any evidence that it
> > > was claimed by either party to be relevant, or formed part of Judge
> > > Saris's analysis in any way?
> >
> > Well, let's put it this way... I see stuff like this:
> > http://library.findlaw.com/2003/Jun/16/132811.html
> >
> > "Progress alleged breach of contract, tortious interference with
> > third-party contracts and relationships, unfair competition and
> > several similar business-related torts. Progress also sought
> > declaratory judgment as to its trademark rights and other rights
> > relating to its sale and distribution of the MySQL software."
> >
> > I find it hard to believe that they'd have filed those charges if
> > the only contract involved had been the GPL.
>
> Did you miss the _trademark_ license agreement, unrelated in any way
> to the license (the GPL) under which Progress claimed rights to copy,
> modify, and distribute MySQL's code?
I think you'll agree that the crucial question here is: what license was
granted in the agreements between Progress and MySQL?
> > I do believe that my specific point here, which I'm guessing you're
> > trying to refute, is a point which is based rather heavily on
> > contract law.
>
> If you are trying to say that some other license of copyright was
> involved in any meaningful way, or that the judge did not interpret
> the GPL in the GPL section of her opinion but some amalgam of the GPL
> and some alternate copyright license, then you are in the astrology
> zone of arrant nonsense based on the facts at hand.
http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/6025/print
> > Since I don't really know what you're talking about here, I'm not going
> > to attempt to answer.
...
> I repeat -- is it remotely plausible that any judge would give
> "copyright-based license" the time of day, instead of treating the GPL
> as a creature of contract law (or the equivalent in systems other than
> common law)? It's about time you stopped bullshitting and took a
> stand here.
Since I don't know what you are specifically trying to allege, I can't
offer any reasonable comments.
--
Raul
Reply to: