Re: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> wrote:
> > Anyway, I was not talking about distributing the "working" hello_world
> > (if you are referring to the working set of it in RAM, after loaded --
> > after all, this is the only thing that "performs" when a file is dynalinked)
>
> Note also that all of the early precedents in the US with respect to
> run-time copyright infringement, unauthorized computer maintenance,
> etc. have been supplanted by 17 USC 117. Run-time copies are
> unreachable by copyright infringement claims in the US.
And, I might add, this is another respect in which the FSF FAQ verges
upon the dishonest. Since 17 USC 117 explicitly limits the scope of
what can be considered infringement under section 106, it also
nullifies any claims of contributory infringement when a distributor
arranges for things to be combined at run-time.
And that's a genuine respect in which it is safer to link dynamically.
Even if a crack-smoking court ignores all precedent by proceeding
directly to copyright law AND construes "work based on the Program" to
include collective works (no, Raul, that would not be an automatic
consequence of the former), you've got an unassailable defense under
17 USC 117. Unless, of course, the program you wrote, whose source
code you are withholding (or offering under some license other than
the GPL), really is a derivative work!
Cheers,
- Michael
Reply to: