Re: License issue on tiny Javascript fragment
"Joe Smith" <unknown_kev_cat@hotmail.com> writes:
> This new version is the very definition of a function too trivial to
> copyright
That's a pretty strong assertion. The “very definition of” as
defined where? Or what, exactly, are you claiming?
You also seem to be under the misapprehension that “to copyright” is
something that a creator does to a work. It's not. Instead, copyright
is an automatic monopoly granted *to* the creator; under the Berne
convention, nobody decides “to copyright” a work.
Or, more briefly: copyright long ago stopped being a verb, and is now
a noun. It's now more akin to a very insidious attribute that slithers
into just about any human intellectual work usually uninvited, and is
very difficult to eradicate completely from the work.
> even the variable names and whitespaceing are as non-creative as
> possible.
“Difficult to read” isn't the same thing as “non-creative”. On the
contrary; you have demonstrated that someone can creatively decide on
different creative expressions of the same work, to the extent that
you contrast your expression with one that differs in its uses of
variable names and whitespace.
Moreover, I'm not aware of a valid legal theory that use of variable
names or whitespace have any bearing on whether a particular work is
subject to copyright.
Given all that, I'd be very wary of taking the above quoted claims as
having any meaningful application.
--
\ “On the other hand, you have different fingers.” —Steven Wright |
`\ |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Reply to: