Re: Compatibility between CC licenses and the GPL
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 10:46:09PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > Actually, that's not entirely true. To the extent that a chunk of
> > published code is purely functional and lacking in "creative
> > expression", or meets either the "de minimis" or the "fair use"
> > standard of affirmative defense,
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 12:54:01PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Not valid in many jurisdictions. Nothing that relies on this to be
> free can be considered acceptable by Debian, or anybody else who works
> internationally.
I think you've stated this a bit too broadly.
See articles, 2, 4 and 5 of the wipo copyright treaty at
http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/diplconf/distrib/94dc.htm
It could be better, but there are definite international
limits on what's considered copyrightable.
Also, article 10 of the Berne Convention provides an
international basis for fair use. It could be better,
but that's not the same thing as not being reliable.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/10.html
Finally, there's issues of sheer practicality. Short
character sequences (such as >:@(_1:`($:@(2&*))@.(100&>:))"0
to pull an recent example from another mailing list)
aren't going to be worth treating as copyrighted material,
no matter which copyrighted works they appear in. [And,
yes, in case you're wondering, that example is a program --
and a recursive one at that.]
--
Raul
Reply to: