Re: Legal status of short, perhaps uncopyrightable program (fwd)
Asheesh Laroia <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I think it's possible that the short strings in this program are
> uncopyrightable since they're so short, and since there is no copyright for
> databases the collection as a group isn't copyrightable either. (Like fortune
> quotes.) But I'm not a lawyer, and I defer to the opinion of debian-legal.
Here in England), databases may have copyright that covers
the selection and arrangement of the contents.
There are also database rights.
(Biased gov.uk site, not recommended in general.)
> There are some murmurings on the Web (e.g.,
> http://www.spatula.net/software/sex/ ,
> http://packages.gentoo.org/ebuilds/?sex-1.0 ) from people who believe that it
> is BSD-licensed, but in truth I have been able to find no license.
http://www.spatula.net/software/sex/ says "Original author unknown.
Presumably this is public domain by now." Anyone know why they
presume that? If it has no copyright permission, isn't it all rights
reserved? Can't escape copyright just because you're ignorant of who
the author is.
I can't remember how to view gentoo ebuilds. Why does that say BSD?
> is the original source of the program, as far as I can tell.
Google refuses to let me view "Adult Content". Is there an archive?
Sorry it's probably not your hoped-for answer,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct