Re: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
This doesn't do anything for the distributor of copyright infringing
software. 17 USC 117 only protects users of that software.
> 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.
Of course, if the court nullifies the copyright then protection is not
needed. But the court never has, at least not in the case of the GPL.
The closest the GPL has come to being nullified is the preliminary
injunction in Progress Software v. MySQL, where the judge granted
a preliminary injunction preventing Progress from distributing or
sublicensing MySQL, and deferred other consideration to MySQL pending
a full trial.
His reasoning was that granting a stronger preliminary injunction
against Progress would destroy that company and thus render the
trial irrelevant.
--
Raul
Reply to: