Re: The death of copyright in software

Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
> structurally 

Once again (albeit different link):

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20040715212732854

<quote>

Altai has been viewed as a landmark decision as it incorporates 
many traditional principles of copyright law into a single 
analytical framework seemingly suitable for computer software. 
However, when honestly applied, the abstraction-filtration-
comparison test eliminates protection for computer programs by 
entirely filtering out not only the individual elements of 
computer programs such as software objects but also the 
compilation of selection and arrangement expression that is the 
program's structure, since both are designed with efficiency in 
mind. 

[...]

It is more appropriate to consider the software objects of a 
computer program as analogous to the gears, pulleys, and levers 
of a mechanical invention, as by its very nature, the design of 
computer software is intended to optimize functionality by 
making a program run faster, use less memory, or be easier for 
the programmer to modify. When viewed as a collection of 

Re: The death of copyright in software

Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2007 13:51:34 -0500 rjack <rjack <at> com> wrote:
> 

> You can write a POSIX compliant shell that shares not one line of
> code with another POSIX compliant shell. You can write a C++ compiler
> that is structurally completely different from another C++ compiler,
> and there will be little doubt that both are protected by copyright.

First review some of the factors iterated in the Lexmark decision that
disqualifies computer source code for copyright protection:

1)    HARDWARE STANDARDS
2)    MECHANICAL SPECIFICATIONS
3)    SOFTWARE STANDARDS
4)    COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
5)    COMPUTER MANUFACTURER DESIGN STANDARDS
6)    TARGET INDUSTRY PRACTICES
7)    STANDARD COMPUTER PROGRAMMING PRACTICES
8)    FUNCTIONAL EFFICIENCIES

You may write one C++ compiler in Forth and another in Python but a
large element of the compiler source code is dictated by the very
exacting specifications of the target processor’s instruction set
[HARDWARE STANDARDS]. Another element of the source code is dictated by
the very exacting C++ Language Specification [SOFTWARE STANDARDS]. A
language compiler is a very functional, rule driven program by its very
definition.

“In the computer-software context, the doctrine means that the elements

Re: Did I finally figure out the rationale?

   "Email"? Did you mean a Usenet posting?

gnu-misc-discuss is a mailing list, it then gets piped through a
email<->NNTP program, so that you can read/reply to it via NNTP.

Re: The death of copyright in software

On Thu, 31 May 2007 20:19:17 -0500
rjack <rjack <at> com> wrote:

> Run your C++ compiler code through the
> “abstraction-filtration-comparison” test in the hands of an expert
> witness in court and your source modules look like Swiss cheese with
> VERY large holes. If the programmer’s comments have been stripped
> (very likely) and trivial obfuscation steps have been applied, your
> copyright protection is virtually non-existent.

If you strip out all the distinguishing characteristics, it's pretty
obvious that on the remainder you cannot get copyright protection. If
you strip the distinguishing stuff out of the typical novel, the result
is no longer copyrightable either (e.g. Woody Allen's appreciation of
War and Peace: "It's about Russians", or a reduction of Romeo and
Juliet to "Boy meets girl, they fall in love, families don't want
them to marry", etc). If you reduce the number of notes you look at to
three or four, every piece of music is a copy of every other piece of
music. 

It's obvious that you cannot claim copyright protection on fragments of
code that anyone would write substantially the same because these
fragments are determined in their expression by the hardware or
other external influences.

But only an idiot without knowledge about programming can argue that
because a program performs the same well-defined function as another
program (i.e. compiling 'C' code or performing an FTP transfer) its
internal structures and algorithms have to be so similar as to be
indistinguishable "after applying trivial obfuscation".

Re: The death of copyright in software

Stefaan A Eeckels writes:
> If you strip out all the distinguishing characteristics, it's pretty
> obvious that on the remainder you cannot get copyright protection.

I think that you two may be talking somewhat at cross-purposes.  AFC
removes the _unprotected_ elements.  Yes, your compiler will look like swiss
cheese after AFC: it will be full of holes where the unprotected elements
have been removed, but the the bulk of the code will remain.

As you note, every work contains unprotected elements, but most works still
consist mostly of protected stuff.
--

-- 
John Hasler 
john <at> dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

Re: The death of copyright in software

John Hasler wrote:
[...]
> cheese after AFC: it will be full of holes where the unprotected elements
> have been removed, but the the bulk of the code will remain.

If at all, nothing really interesting from engineering perspective 
(only sort of moronic ways to express "hello world" int main, so to 
speak).

regards,
alexander.

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgezxJJa6aU

Re: Did I finally figure out the rationale?

Qua, 2007-05-30 às 20:33 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
> On May 28, 2:39 pm, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <r... <at> 1407.org> wrote:
> > Seg, 2007-05-28 às 12:04 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
> >
> > > And therefore the GPL is more of a copyright license, whereas the MS-
> > > EULA
> > > is more of a contract -- since the MS-EULA _takes away_ rights one
> > > would
> > > otherwise have, whereas the GPL _grants_ rights one would otherwise
> > > _not_ have.
> >
> > Why... I argue that perhaps MS-EULA would be illegal in most copyright
> > laws were it not for all those "except where prohibited by law" :)
> >
> 
> So are you saying the copyright law is too restrictive?

Well, you see... do write a book. Do you know what copyright law says
about that book you wrote?
Nobody but you can copy it.
Only you can say who can copy it.

In order for publishers to copy it and distribute it (by selling
copies), you need to authorize them to do that.

Or you may be weak enough in order to assign (by contract) your
copyrights to them.

Or you could publish it as a Free Book.

Re: Did I finally figure out the rationale?

Qui, 2007-05-31 às 12:16 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
> > For some years Microsoft's EULA removes your right to privacy. It also
> > explicitly allows Microsoft to inspect your premises for compliance, as
> > well as administrate your machines.
> >
> 
> So then how is it just a copyright license, if you are agreeing to
> give information to Microsoft?

It's part of their conditions for accepting the copy. You either accept
them or you don't.

I only use Free Software.

Rui

--

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Did I finally figure out the rationale?

Qua, 2007-05-30 às 20:35 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
> > Can anyone tell a single right MS-EULA grants under copyright law which
> > YOU DON'T ALREADY HAVE? I can't see any...
> >
> 
> And therefore it's NOT a copyright license but a dumb contract
> that only creates MORE restrictions.

It's a copyright license. If it was a contract, maybe you could drop the
abusive clauses and move on.

As it is, if you don't accept that, you should destroy your copy.

Rui

--

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Did I finally figure out the rationale?

Rui writes:
> It's part of their conditions for accepting the copy. You either accept
> them or you don't.

It is part of their conditions for selling you a tangible object which
happens to embody a copy of a work on which they hold copyright.  They will
give you the copy if you give them some money and agree to the terms of the
contract.  Since the contract involves only the exchange of money for a
tangible object and does not involve the copyright owner yielding any of
his exclusive rights it does not impinge on copyright.  If Microsoft were
to try to sue you in Federal court for copyright infringment for publishing
an unauthorized review or selling the copy to someone else they would be
told that it was a contract matter and to take it to state court.
--

-- 
John Hasler 
john <at> dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA