Copyright & Copyleft

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 28, 2009.

  1. The Swedish Pirate Party wants to reduce the term of copyright to just 5 years. But reducing the term of copyright also correspondingly reduces
    the term of applicability of copyleft licences like the GPL. So is this a good idea?

    <http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/pirate-partys-copyright-reform-cannon-could-sink-copyleft.ars>
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 28, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    On Jul 28, 6:53 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > The Swedish Pirate Party wants to reduce the term of copyright to just 5 years. But reducing the term of copyright also correspondingly reduces
    > the term of applicability of copyleft licences like the GPL. So is this a good idea?
    >
    > <http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/pirate-partys-copyrig...>


    5 years would be quite adequate for software whether proprietary or
    GPL'd. Any code more than five years old would be hopelessly out of
    date, especially since for amendments the 5 years would start ticking
    from the date of amendment.
    peterwn, Jul 28, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In message <>, Allistar wrote:

    > That would be quite cumbersome having a product where some of it (i.e.
    > some lines of code) still have copyright but other bits of it do not.


    No it wouldn't. You'd just put the whole thing under the GPL or whatever
    other licence you want. That's what "public domain" means--you can do that.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 29, 2009
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    Allistar wrote:
    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> In message <>, Allistar
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> That would be quite cumbersome having a product where some of it (i.e.
    >>> some lines of code) still have copyright but other bits of it do not.

    >> No it wouldn't. You'd just put the whole thing under the GPL or whatever
    >> other licence you want. That's what "public domain" means--you can do
    >> that.

    >
    > The GPL is only enforcable as long as copyright still exists on the code.
    > Once copyright runs out, then the GPL can be ignored and people can do what
    > they please. Or am I wrong in that?


    Don't know, nobody knows, whether copyright could be renewed on new
    releases.
    Its a worse situation for the rest of the copyright world, its only a
    provocative statement to promote debate, and the consequences can only
    be defined by subsequent law which won't happen.
    Copyright will continue to be pragmatically administered by content
    creators reserving their rights and only enforcing them selectively.
    victor, Jul 30, 2009
    #4
  5. In article <h4qkuj$bgn$-september.org>, victor <> wrote:
    >Allistar wrote:
    >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>
    >>> In message <>, Allistar
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> That would be quite cumbersome having a product where some of it (i.e.
    >>>> some lines of code) still have copyright but other bits of it do not.
    >>> No it wouldn't. You'd just put the whole thing under the GPL or whatever
    >>> other licence you want. That's what "public domain" means--you can do
    >>> that.

    >>
    >> The GPL is only enforcable as long as copyright still exists on the code.
    >> Once copyright runs out, then the GPL can be ignored and people can do what
    >> they please. Or am I wrong in that?

    >
    >Don't know, nobody knows, whether copyright could be renewed on new
    >releases.
    >Its a worse situation for the rest of the copyright world, its only a
    >provocative statement to promote debate, and the consequences can only
    >be defined by subsequent law which won't happen.
    >Copyright will continue to be pragmatically administered by content
    >creators reserving their rights and only enforcing them selectively.


    :)

    This is best summed up to me by the quote that goes something like ...

    Copyright tells me a whole lot of things I can't do.
    The GPL tells me what I can do.

    Not completely accurate, but it does give you a good idea of the different
    'feel' of the things.
    Bruce Sinclair, Jul 30, 2009
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    On Jul 30, 10:06 am, Allistar <> wrote:
    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > > In message <>, Allistar
    > > wrote:

    >
    > >> That would be quite cumbersome having a product where some of it (i.e.
    > >> some lines of code) still have copyright but other bits of it do not.

    >
    > > No it wouldn't. You'd just put the whole thing under the GPL or whatever
    > > other licence you want. That's what "public domain" means--you can do
    > > that.

    >
    > The GPL is only enforcable as long as copyright still exists on the code.
    > Once copyright runs out, then the GPL can be ignored and people can do what
    > they please. Or am I wrong in that?
    > --
    > A.


    Patents lasts for 14 years or so. Copyright lasts for 50+ years after
    creator's death (depending on country) and assignment of the copyright
    would not affect this duration.

    It is not a matter of 'ignoring' the GPL. When copyright runs out,
    you can ignore the copyright. The GPL is something you need to wave
    in front of the judge if you are accused of breaching copyright, you
    cannot claim that the GPL is illegal, unconstitutional, not tested in
    court, fattening etc. If you do you merely shoot yourself in the foot
    since you are repudiating your only defence.

    The GPL is a licence, not a contract. A licence is an ancient legal
    concept, much older than contract. The most basic form of licence can
    be revoked at the leisure of the issuer of the licence. However the
    issuer of the GPL promises never to revoke the GPL as long as its
    conditions are met. A court of equity will enforce such a promise.

    In countries with other legal systems, different concepts apply but
    with the same outcome. In Germany, the GPL is treated as a contract
    and has been upheld by a German court as such.

    No one has been unfairly 'pinged' for allegedly breaching the GPL.
    Various companies have been caught breaching the GPL and have settled
    out of court (cash settlement plus publication of the source code for
    any amendments made to the software). AFAIK no 'common law' court
    (Commonwealth and USA) has directly ruled on a GPL case because the
    defendant knows he will be hammered by the judge. It is that simple.
    This is what is so 'neat' about the GPL, yet for some oddball reason
    some people think it is a joke.

    Several years ago, some clown on this ng tried to argue that the GPL
    was 'unenforceable' in NZ as it had not been tested in a NZ court. As
    one can see from above this is total nonsense.
    peterwn, Jul 30, 2009
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    impossible Guest

    "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Jul 30, 10:06 am, Allistar <> wrote:
    >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >> > In message <>, Allistar
    >> > wrote:

    >>
    >> >> That would be quite cumbersome having a product where some of it (i.e.
    >> >> some lines of code) still have copyright but other bits of it do not.

    >>
    >> > No it wouldn't. You'd just put the whole thing under the GPL or
    >> > whatever
    >> > other licence you want. That's what "public domain" means--you can do
    >> > that.

    >>
    >> The GPL is only enforcable as long as copyright still exists on the code.
    >> Once copyright runs out, then the GPL can be ignored and people can do
    >> what
    >> they please. Or am I wrong in that?
    >> --
    >> A.


    > Patents lasts for 14 years or so. Copyright lasts for 50+ years after
    > creator's death (depending on country) and assignment of the copyright
    > would not affect this duration.
    >
    > It is not a matter of 'ignoring' the GPL. When copyright runs out,
    > you can ignore the copyright.


    According to the GPL itsef (Copyright 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.),
    :

    "All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright
    on the Program...."

    That makes sense, because without copyright the there is no one who is
    recognized under law as having an exclusive right to set the terms of use
    for a given work. So when the term of the copyright expires, so do the
    rights granted under GPL. Modifications to the work would no longer require
    "copyright permission", and so the GPL would indeed become irrelevant.

    http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html

    Of course, you're the law student. Maybe you've discovered some ancient
    clause in the Dead Sea Scrolls that locks in a claim to copyright protection
    in perpetuity so long as the Force is on the right (or is it left?)side. But
    it looks to me like dropping the copyright term from 50 years to 5 would
    pretty much gut the open-source community.
    impossible, Jul 30, 2009
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    On Jul 31, 12:07 am, "impossible" <> wrote:

    >
    > According to the GPL itsef (Copyright 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.),
    > :
    >
    > "All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright
    > on the Program...."
    >
    > That makes sense, because without copyright the there is no one who is
    > recognized under law as having an exclusive right to set the terms of use
    > for a given work. So when the term of the copyright expires, so do the
    > rights granted under GPL. Modifications to the work would no longer require
    > "copyright permission", and so the GPL would indeed become irrelevant.


    That is right. Once copyright has expired, anyone can make use of the
    work as they see fit, they do not need to rely on the GPL.

    >
    > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html
    >
    > Of course, you're the law student. Maybe you've discovered some ancient
    > clause in the Dead Sea Scrolls that locks in a claim to copyright protection
    > in perpetuity so long as the Force is on the right (or is it left?)side. But
    > it looks to me like dropping the copyright term from 50 years to 5 would
    > pretty much gut the open-source community.


    This is another point that is missed. There is not a single GPL but
    thousands if not millions of instances of the GPL just like there are
    thousands of instances of the standard agreement form that real estate
    agents use for house sales. Critics of the GPL seem to think there is
    only one licence in existence.

    When the GPL requrires someone to grant licence in the form of the GPL
    and to publish the source code, the 50 years or so starts from then,
    not when the original code was created. The 50 years would also re-
    start for Microsoft's updates on Windows, etc.

    If the software copyright term were to be dropped to five years, while
    the original code would be 'out of copyright' after five years,
    subsequent modifications, bug fixes etc would still be 'in copyright'
    beyond that five years. After five years the original code would be
    of limited use, hence my argument that a 5 year limit (which I never
    suggested in the first place) would have little adverse effect on the
    creators of GPL'd code, Windows XP, etc etc.
    peterwn, Jul 30, 2009
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    impossible Guest

    > "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> On Jul 30, 10:06 am, Allistar <> wrote:
    >>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>> > In message <>, Allistar
    >>>> > wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> >> That would be quite cumbersome having a product where some of it
    >>>> >> (i.e.
    >>>> >> some lines of code) still have copyright but other bits of it do
    >>>> >> not.
    >>>>
    >>>> > No it wouldn't. You'd just put the whole thing under the GPL or
    >>>> > whatever
    >>>> > other licence you want. That's what "public domain" means--you can do
    >>>> > that.
    >>>>
    >>>> The GPL is only enforcable as long as copyright still exists on the
    >>>> code.
    >>>> Once copyright runs out, then the GPL can be ignored and people can do
    >>>> what
    >>>> they please. Or am I wrong in that?
    >>>> --


    Whoops! You deleted your daft comments claiming that copyright proytection
    was irrelevant to the GPL. Let's restore them to put this discussion in
    context.


    >>>
    >>> Patents lasts for 14 years or so. Copyright lasts for 50+ years after
    >>> creator's death (depending on country) and assignment of the copyright
    >>> would not affect this duration.
    >>>
    >>> It is not a matter of 'ignoring' the GPL. When copyright runs out,
    >>> you can ignore the copyright.


    See? That was really dumb of you to say, right? Allow me to correct you.
    >
    >> According to the GPL itsef (Copyright 2007 Free Software Foundation,
    >> Inc.),
    >> :
    >>
    >> "All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
    >> copyright
    >> on the Program...."
    >>
    >> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html
    >>
    >> That makes sense, because without copyright the there is no one who is
    >> recognized under law as having an exclusive right to set the terms of use
    >> for a given work. So when the term of the copyright expires, so do the
    >> rights granted under GPL. Modifications to the work would no longer
    >> require
    >> "copyright permission", and so the GPL would indeed become irrelevant.


    > That is right. Once copyright has expired, anyone can make use of the
    > work as they see fit, they do not need to rely on the GPL.
    >
    >
    >>
    >> Of course, you're the law student. Maybe you've discovered some ancient
    >> clause in the Dead Sea Scrolls that locks in a claim to copyright
    >> protection
    >> in perpetuity so long as the Force is on the right (or is it left?)side.
    >> But
    >> it looks to me like dropping the copyright term from 50 years to 5 would
    >> pretty much gut the open-source community.

    >
    > This is another point that is missed. There is not a single GPL but
    > thousands if not millions of instances of the GPL just like there are
    > thousands of instances of the standard agreement form that real estate
    > agents use for house sales. Critics of the GPL seem to think there is
    > only one licence in existence.
    >


    Got one that isn't based on copyright protection? No, didn't think so.

    > When the GPL requrires someone to grant licence in the form of the GPL
    > and to publish the source code, the 50 years or so starts from then,
    > not when the original code was created.


    Let's be clear: If copyright on the original work has expired, no one has an
    exclusive right to require anyone to do anything with regard to that work.
    It's in the public domain -- as free as any software can possibly be.
    Neither the GPL nor any other license would any longer have the force of
    law. Should someone then come along and create a **significant change** to
    the public domain version that has the effect of creating a **substantially
    new work**, then obviously a new term of copyright begins.

    > The 50 years would also restart for Microsoft's updates on Windows, etc.
    >


    No. Minor revisions to an existing work by the copyright holder do not
    perpetually extend copyright protection.

    >If the software copyright term were to be dropped to five years, while
    > the original code would be 'out of copyright' after five years,
    > subsequent modifications, bug fixes etc would still be 'in copyright'
    > beyond that five years.


    No. A bug fix doesn't extend copyright protection either.

    > After five years the original code would be
    > of limited use, hence my argument that a 5 year limit (which I never
    > suggested in the first place) would have little adverse effect on the
    > creators of GPL'd code, Windows XP, etc etc.


    Yeah, right. 2015: RedHat emerges as the world's #1 provider of copyright
    expiration date pop-ups. Good luck with that.
    impossible, Jul 31, 2009
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    On Jul 31, 12:41 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:

    I can answer your comments very easily.

    Agreed modification to the original code does not extend copyright to
    the original code, but the modifications themselves are subject to
    fresh copyright in favour of the creator of the modifications. That
    copyright starts from when the modidications were created. This would
    in due course lead to the situation where the original code is out of
    copyright while the amendments remain in copyright. Amen.

    Such a situation is no different from MS Windows which contains some
    public domain (or virtually public domain) code such as the TCP/IP
    stack (for the sake of clarity I do not mean GPL'd code). You will be
    delighted to hear that the presence of such code does not nullify the
    copyright of Windows at large.

    Even in the case of bug fixes, the creator of the fixes (eg Microsoft)
    sometimes reserves rights to the fixes and may even require a fresh
    EULA for their installation.
    peterwn, Jul 31, 2009
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    impossible Guest

    "impossible" <> wrote in message
    news:d5rcm.209742$DP1.171379@attbi_s22...
    >>> "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>> On Jul 30, 10:06 am, Allistar <> wrote:
    >>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>>> > In message <>,
    >>>>>> > Allistar
    >>>>>> > wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> >> That would be quite cumbersome having a product where some of it
    >>>>>> >> (i.e.
    >>>>>> >> some lines of code) still have copyright but other bits of it do
    >>>>>> >> not.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> > No it wouldn't. You'd just put the whole thing under the GPL or
    >>>>>> > whatever
    >>>>>> > other licence you want. That's what "public domain" means--you can
    >>>>>> > do
    >>>>>> > that.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The GPL is only enforcable as long as copyright still exists on the
    >>>>>> code.
    >>>>>> Once copyright runs out, then the GPL can be ignored and people can
    >>>>>> do
    >>>>>> what
    >>>>>> they please. Or am I wrong in that?
    >>>>>> --

    >>
    >> Whoops! You deleted your daft comments claiming that copyright
    >> proytection was irrelevant to the GPL. Let's restore them to put this
    >> discussion in context.
    >>
    >>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Patents lasts for 14 years or so. Copyright lasts for 50+ years after
    >>>>> creator's death (depending on country) and assignment of the copyright
    >>>>> would not affect this duration.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It is not a matter of 'ignoring' the GPL. When copyright runs out,
    >>>>> you can ignore the copyright.

    >>
    >> See? That was really dumb of you to say, right? Allow me to correct you.
    >>>
    >>>> According to the GPL itsef (Copyright 2007 Free Software Foundation,
    >>>> Inc.),
    >>>> :
    >>>>
    >>>> "All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
    >>>> copyright
    >>>> on the Program...."
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html
    >>>>
    >>>> That makes sense, because without copyright the there is no one who is
    >>>> recognized under law as having an exclusive right to set the terms of
    >>>> use
    >>>> for a given work. So when the term of the copyright expires, so do the
    >>>> rights granted under GPL. Modifications to the work would no longer
    >>>> require
    >>>> "copyright permission", and so the GPL would indeed become irrelevant.

    >>
    >>> That is right. Once copyright has expired, anyone can make use of the
    >>> work as they see fit, they do not need to rely on the GPL.
    >>>
    >>>
    >> >>
    >>>> Of course, you're the law student. Maybe you've discovered some ancient
    >>>> clause in the Dead Sea Scrolls that locks in a claim to copyright
    >>>> protection
    >>>> in perpetuity so long as the Force is on the right (or is it
    >>>> left?)side. But
    >>>> it looks to me like dropping the copyright term from 50 years to 5
    >>>> would
    >>>> pretty much gut the open-source community.
    >>>
    >>> This is another point that is missed. There is not a single GPL but
    >>> thousands if not millions of instances of the GPL just like there are
    >>> thousands of instances of the standard agreement form that real estate
    >>> agents use for house sales. Critics of the GPL seem to think there is
    >>> only one licence in existence.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Got one that isn't based on copyright protection? No, didn't think so.
    >>
    >>> When the GPL requrires someone to grant licence in the form of the GPL
    >>> and to publish the source code, the 50 years or so starts from then,
    >>> not when the original code was created.

    >>
    >> Let's be clear: If copyright on the original work has expired, no one has
    >> an exclusive right to require anyone to do anything with regard to that
    >> work. It's in the public domain -- as free as any software can possibly
    >> be. Neither the GPL nor any other license would any longer have the force
    >> of law. Should someone then come along and create a **significant
    >> change** to the public domain version that has the effect of creating a
    >> **substantially new work**, then obviously a new term of copyright
    >> begins.
    >>
    >>> The 50 years would also restart for Microsoft's updates on Windows,
    >>> etc.
    >>>

    >>
    >> No. Minor revisions to an existing work by the copyright holder do not
    >> perpetually extend copyright protection.
    >>
    >>>If the software copyright term were to be dropped to five years, while
    >>> the original code would be 'out of copyright' after five years,
    >>> subsequent modifications, bug fixes etc would still be 'in copyright'
    >>> beyond that five years.

    >>
    >> No. A bug fix doesn't extend copyright protection either.
    >>
    >>> After five years the original code would be
    >>> of limited use, hence my argument that a 5 year limit (which I never
    >>> suggested in the first place) would have little adverse effect on the
    >>> creators of GPL'd code, Windows XP, etc etc.

    >>
    >> Yeah, right. 2015: RedHat emerges as the world's #1 provider of copyright
    >> expiration date pop-ups. Good luck with that.


    > I can answer your comments very easily.
    >


    Apparently, you can only do that "easily" if you delete all your previous
    comments and mine. I understand, you've been caught out making up nonsense
    about copyright and the GPL, and it's inconvenient for you to have those
    facts staring you in the face. Carry on.

    > Agreed modification to the original code does not extend copyright to
    > the original code,


    Good, so you admit you were wrong. You can't fabricate a patch or bug fix
    every year and claim an extension of copyright protection on the original
    work.

    > but the modifications themselves are subject to
    > fresh copyright in favour of the creator of the modifications. That
    > copyright starts from when the modidications were created.


    Only if your "modifications" are original and substantial enough to create a
    new work that stands on its own. A new function, utility, add-in, driver,
    etc would qualify. Tweaking a few lines of code here and there would not.

    > This would
    > in due course lead to the situation where the original code is out of
    > copyright while the amendments remain in copyright. Amen.
    >


    Again, only if the "amendments" are original and substantial enough to
    create a new work that stands on its own.

    > Such a situation is no different from MS Windows which contains some
    > public domain (or virtually public domain) code such as the TCP/IP
    > stack (for the sake of clarity I do not mean GPL'd code). You will be
    > delighted to hear that the presence of such code does not nullify the
    > copyright of Windows at large.
    >


    Original works that stand on their own are entitled to copyright protection.

    > Even in the case of bug fixes, the creator of the fixes (eg Microsoft)
    > sometimes reserves rights to the fixes and may even require a fresh
    > EULA for their installation.


    But this doesn't extend the copyright on the original work as you have
    claimed.
    impossible, Jul 31, 2009
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    On Aug 1, 12:03 am, "impossible" <> wrote:


    >
    > But this doesn't extend the copyright on the original work as you have
    > claimed.


    I have NEVER claimed this - read my posts more carefully.
    peterwn, Jul 31, 2009
    #12
  13. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    impossible Guest

    "impossible" <> wrote in message
    news:B3Bcm.210425$DP1.131812@attbi_s22...
    >>
    >> "impossible" <> wrote in message
    >> news:d5rcm.209742$DP1.171379@attbi_s22...
    >>>>> "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>> On Jul 30, 10:06 am, Allistar <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>>>>> > In message <>,
    >>>>>>>> > Allistar
    >>>>>>>> > wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> >> That would be quite cumbersome having a product where some of it
    >>>>>>>> >> (i.e.
    >>>>>>>> >> some lines of code) still have copyright but other bits of it do
    >>>>>>>> >> not.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> > No it wouldn't. You'd just put the whole thing under the GPL or
    >>>>>>>> > whatever
    >>>>>>>> > other licence you want. That's what "public domain" means--you
    >>>>>>>> > can
    >>>>>>>> > do
    >>>>>>>> > that.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> The GPL is only enforcable as long as copyright still exists on the
    >>>>>>>> code.
    >>>>>>>> Once copyright runs out, then the GPL can be ignored and people can
    >>>>>>>> do
    >>>>>>>> what
    >>>>>>>> they please. Or am I wrong in that?
    >>>>>>>> --
    >>>>
    >>>> Whoops! You deleted your daft comments claiming that copyright
    >>>> proytection was irrelevant to the GPL. Let's restore them to put this
    >>>> discussion in context.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Patents lasts for 14 years or so. Copyright lasts for 50+ years
    >>>>>>> after
    >>>>>>> creator's death (depending on country) and assignment of the
    >>>>>>> copyright
    >>>>>>> would not affect this duration.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> It is not a matter of 'ignoring' the GPL. When copyright runs out,
    >>>>>>> you can ignore the copyright.
    >>>>
    >>>> See? That was really dumb of you to say, right? Allow me to correct
    >>>> you.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> According to the GPL itsef (Copyright 2007 Free Software Foundation,
    >>>>>> Inc.),
    >>>>>> :
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
    >>>>>> copyright
    >>>>>> on the Program...."
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> That makes sense, because without copyright the there is no one who
    >>>>>> is
    >>>>>> recognized under law as having an exclusive right to set the terms of
    >>>>>> use
    >>>>>> for a given work. So when the term of the copyright expires, so do
    >>>>>> the
    >>>>>> rights granted under GPL. Modifications to the work would no longer
    >>>>>> require
    >>>>>> "copyright permission", and so the GPL would indeed become
    >>>>>> irrelevant.
    >>>>
    >>>>> That is right. Once copyright has expired, anyone can make use of the
    >>>>> work as they see fit, they do not need to rely on the GPL.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> >>
    >>>>>> Of course, you're the law student. Maybe you've discovered some
    >>>>>> ancient
    >>>>>> clause in the Dead Sea Scrolls that locks in a claim to copyright
    >>>>>> protection
    >>>>>> in perpetuity so long as the Force is on the right (or is it
    >>>>>> left?)side. But
    >>>>>> it looks to me like dropping the copyright term from 50 years to 5
    >>>>>> would
    >>>>>> pretty much gut the open-source community.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> This is another point that is missed. There is not a single GPL but
    >>>>> thousands if not millions of instances of the GPL just like there are
    >>>>> thousands of instances of the standard agreement form that real estate
    >>>>> agents use for house sales. Critics of the GPL seem to think there is
    >>>>> only one licence in existence.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Got one that isn't based on copyright protection? No, didn't think so.
    >>>>
    >>>>> When the GPL requrires someone to grant licence in the form of the GPL
    >>>>> and to publish the source code, the 50 years or so starts from then,
    >>>>> not when the original code was created.
    >>>>
    >>>> Let's be clear: If copyright on the original work has expired, no one
    >>>> has
    >>>> an exclusive right to require anyone to do anything with regard to that
    >>>> work. It's in the public domain -- as free as any software can possibly
    >>>> be. Neither the GPL nor any other license would any longer have the
    >>>> force
    >>>> of law. Should someone then come along and create a **significant
    >>>> change** to the public domain version that has the effect of creating a
    >>>> **substantially new work**, then obviously a new term of copyright
    >>>> begins.
    >>>>
    >>>>> The 50 years would also restart for Microsoft's updates on Windows,
    >>>>> etc.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> No. Minor revisions to an existing work by the copyright holder do not
    >>>> perpetually extend copyright protection.
    >>>>
    >>>>>If the software copyright term were to be dropped to five years, while
    >>>>> the original code would be 'out of copyright' after five years,
    >>>>> subsequent modifications, bug fixes etc would still be 'in copyright'
    >>>>> beyond that five years.
    >>>>
    >>>> No. A bug fix doesn't extend copyright protection either.
    >>>>
    >>>>> After five years the original code would be
    >>>>> of limited use, hence my argument that a 5 year limit (which I never
    >>>>> suggested in the first place) would have little adverse effect on the
    >>>>> creators of GPL'd code, Windows XP, etc etc.
    >>>>
    >>>> Yeah, right. 2015: RedHat emerges as the world's #1 provider of
    >>>> copyright
    >>>> expiration date pop-ups. Good luck with that.

    >>
    >>> I can answer your comments very easily.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Apparently, you can only do that "easily" if you delete all your previous
    >> comments and mine. I understand, you've been caught out making up
    >> nonsense
    >> about copyright and the GPL, and it's inconvenient for you to have those
    >> facts staring you in the face. Carry on.
    >>
    >>> Agreed modification to the original code does not extend copyright to
    >>> the original code,

    >>
    >> Good, so you admit you were wrong. You can't fabricate a patch or bug
    >> fix
    >> every year and claim an extension of copyright protection on the original
    >> work.
    >>
    >>> but the modifications themselves are subject to
    >>> fresh copyright in favour of the creator of the modifications. That
    >>> copyright starts from when the modidications were created.

    >>
    >> Only if your "modifications" are original and substantial enough to
    >> create a
    >> new work that stands on its own. A new function, utility, add-in, driver,
    >> etc would qualify. Tweaking a few lines of code here and there would not.
    >>
    >>> This would
    >>> in due course lead to the situation where the original code is out of
    >>> copyright while the amendments remain in copyright. Amen.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Again, only if the "amendments" are original and substantial enough to
    >> create a new work that stands on its own.
    >>
    >>> Such a situation is no different from MS Windows which contains some
    >>> public domain (or virtually public domain) code such as the TCP/IP
    >>> stack (for the sake of clarity I do not mean GPL'd code). You will be
    >>> delighted to hear that the presence of such code does not nullify the
    >>> copyright of Windows at large.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Original works that stand on their own are entitled to copyright
    >> protection.
    >>
    >>> Even in the case of bug fixes, the creator of the fixes (eg Microsoft)
    >>> sometimes reserves rights to the fixes and may even require a fresh
    >>> EULA for their installation.

    >>
    >> But this doesn't extend the copyright on the original work as you have
    >> claimed.
    >>

    >
    > I have NEVER claimed this - read my posts more carefully.
    >


    I appreciate that it must be tough on you when you can't crib all your posts
    from Groklaw. But deleting your posts (and mine) each time you desperately
    attempt a counter-argument to save your arse doesn't contribute to a good
    discussion.
    impossible, Jul 31, 2009
    #13
  14. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    On Aug 1, 10:50 am, "impossible" <> wrote:

    > >> But this doesn't extend the copyright on the original work as you have
    > >> claimed.

    >
    > > I have NEVER claimed this - read my posts more carefully.

    >
    > I appreciate that it must be tough on you when you can't crib all your posts
    > from Groklaw. But deleting your posts (and mine) each time you desperately
    > attempt a counter-argument to save your arse doesn't contribute to a good
    > discussion.


    I delete in the interests of bandwidth economy, it is part of my
    ancestory. One can always look at the next post up in the thread.
    peterwn, Aug 1, 2009
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    impossible Guest

    "impossible" <> wrote in message
    news:DyKcm.211034$DP1.137718@attbi_s22...
    >>
    >> "impossible" <> wrote in message
    >> news:B3Bcm.210425$DP1.131812@attbi_s22...
    >>>>
    >>>> "impossible" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:d5rcm.209742$DP1.171379@attbi_s22...
    >>>>>>> "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 10:06 am, Allistar <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> > In message <>,
    >>>>>>>>>> > Allistar
    >>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> >> That would be quite cumbersome having a product where some of
    >>>>>>>>>> >> it
    >>>>>>>>>> >> (i.e.
    >>>>>>>>>> >> some lines of code) still have copyright but other bits of it
    >>>>>>>>>> >> do
    >>>>>>>>>> >> not.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> > No it wouldn't. You'd just put the whole thing under the GPL or
    >>>>>>>>>> > whatever
    >>>>>>>>>> > other licence you want. That's what "public domain" means--you
    >>>>>>>>>> > can
    >>>>>>>>>> > do
    >>>>>>>>>> > that.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> The GPL is only enforcable as long as copyright still exists on
    >>>>>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>>>>> code.
    >>>>>>>>>> Once copyright runs out, then the GPL can be ignored and people
    >>>>>>>>>> can
    >>>>>>>>>> do
    >>>>>>>>>> what
    >>>>>>>>>> they please. Or am I wrong in that?
    >>>>>>>>>> --
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Whoops! You deleted your daft comments claiming that copyright
    >>>>>> proytection was irrelevant to the GPL. Let's restore them to put this
    >>>>>> discussion in context.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Patents lasts for 14 years or so. Copyright lasts for 50+ years
    >>>>>>>>> after
    >>>>>>>>> creator's death (depending on country) and assignment of the
    >>>>>>>>> copyright
    >>>>>>>>> would not affect this duration.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> It is not a matter of 'ignoring' the GPL. When copyright runs
    >>>>>>>>> out,
    >>>>>>>>> you can ignore the copyright.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> See? That was really dumb of you to say, right? Allow me to correct
    >>>>>> you.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> According to the GPL itsef (Copyright 2007 Free Software
    >>>>>>>> Foundation,
    >>>>>>>> Inc.),
    >>>>>>>> :
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> "All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
    >>>>>>>> copyright
    >>>>>>>> on the Program...."
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> That makes sense, because without copyright the there is no one who
    >>>>>>>> is
    >>>>>>>> recognized under law as having an exclusive right to set the terms
    >>>>>>>> of
    >>>>>>>> use
    >>>>>>>> for a given work. So when the term of the copyright expires, so do
    >>>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>>> rights granted under GPL. Modifications to the work would no longer
    >>>>>>>> require
    >>>>>>>> "copyright permission", and so the GPL would indeed become
    >>>>>>>> irrelevant.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> That is right. Once copyright has expired, anyone can make use of
    >>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>> work as they see fit, they do not need to rely on the GPL.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> >>
    >>>>>>>> Of course, you're the law student. Maybe you've discovered some
    >>>>>>>> ancient
    >>>>>>>> clause in the Dead Sea Scrolls that locks in a claim to copyright
    >>>>>>>> protection
    >>>>>>>> in perpetuity so long as the Force is on the right (or is it
    >>>>>>>> left?)side. But
    >>>>>>>> it looks to me like dropping the copyright term from 50 years to 5
    >>>>>>>> would
    >>>>>>>> pretty much gut the open-source community.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> This is another point that is missed. There is not a single GPL but
    >>>>>>> thousands if not millions of instances of the GPL just like there
    >>>>>>> are
    >>>>>>> thousands of instances of the standard agreement form that real
    >>>>>>> estate
    >>>>>>> agents use for house sales. Critics of the GPL seem to think there
    >>>>>>> is
    >>>>>>> only one licence in existence.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Got one that isn't based on copyright protection? No, didn't think
    >>>>>> so.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> When the GPL requrires someone to grant licence in the form of the
    >>>>>>> GPL
    >>>>>>> and to publish the source code, the 50 years or so starts from then,
    >>>>>>> not when the original code was created.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Let's be clear: If copyright on the original work has expired, no one
    >>>>>> has
    >>>>>> an exclusive right to require anyone to do anything with regard to
    >>>>>> that
    >>>>>> work. It's in the public domain -- as free as any software can
    >>>>>> possibly
    >>>>>> be. Neither the GPL nor any other license would any longer have the
    >>>>>> force
    >>>>>> of law. Should someone then come along and create a **significant
    >>>>>> change** to the public domain version that has the effect of creating
    >>>>>> a
    >>>>>> **substantially new work**, then obviously a new term of copyright
    >>>>>> begins.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> The 50 years would also restart for Microsoft's updates on Windows,
    >>>>>>> etc.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> No. Minor revisions to an existing work by the copyright holder do
    >>>>>> not
    >>>>>> perpetually extend copyright protection.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>If the software copyright term were to be dropped to five years,
    >>>>>>>while
    >>>>>>> the original code would be 'out of copyright' after five years,
    >>>>>>> subsequent modifications, bug fixes etc would still be 'in
    >>>>>>> copyright'
    >>>>>>> beyond that five years.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> No. A bug fix doesn't extend copyright protection either.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> After five years the original code would be
    >>>>>>> of limited use, hence my argument that a 5 year limit (which I never
    >>>>>>> suggested in the first place) would have little adverse effect on
    >>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>> creators of GPL'd code, Windows XP, etc etc.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Yeah, right. 2015: RedHat emerges as the world's #1 provider of
    >>>>>> copyright
    >>>>>> expiration date pop-ups. Good luck with that.
    >>>>
    >>>>> I can answer your comments very easily.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Apparently, you can only do that "easily" if you delete all your
    >>>> previous
    >>>> comments and mine. I understand, you've been caught out making up
    >>>> nonsense
    >>>> about copyright and the GPL, and it's inconvenient for you to have
    >>>> those
    >>>> facts staring you in the face. Carry on.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Agreed modification to the original code does not extend copyright to
    >>>>> the original code,
    >>>>
    >>>> Good, so you admit you were wrong. You can't fabricate a patch or bug
    >>>> fix
    >>>> every year and claim an extension of copyright protection on the
    >>>> original
    >>>> work.
    >>>>
    >>>>> but the modifications themselves are subject to
    >>>>> fresh copyright in favour of the creator of the modifications. That
    >>>>> copyright starts from when the modidications were created.
    >>>>
    >>>> Only if your "modifications" are original and substantial enough to
    >>>> create a
    >>>> new work that stands on its own. A new function, utility, add-in,
    >>>> driver,
    >>>> etc would qualify. Tweaking a few lines of code here and there would
    >>>> not.
    >>>>
    >>>>> This would
    >>>>> in due course lead to the situation where the original code is out of
    >>>>> copyright while the amendments remain in copyright. Amen.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Again, only if the "amendments" are original and substantial enough to
    >>>> create a new work that stands on its own.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Such a situation is no different from MS Windows which contains some
    >>>>> public domain (or virtually public domain) code such as the TCP/IP
    >>>>> stack (for the sake of clarity I do not mean GPL'd code). You will be
    >>>>> delighted to hear that the presence of such code does not nullify the
    >>>>> copyright of Windows at large.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Original works that stand on their own are entitled to copyright
    >>>> protection.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Even in the case of bug fixes, the creator of the fixes (eg Microsoft)
    >>>>> sometimes reserves rights to the fixes and may even require a fresh
    >>>>> EULA for their installation.
    >>>>
    >>>> But this doesn't extend the copyright on the original work as you have
    >>>> claimed.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I have NEVER claimed this - read my posts more carefully.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I appreciate that it must be tough on you when you can't crib all your
    >> posts
    >> from Groklaw. But deleting your posts (and mine) each time you
    >> desperately
    >> attempt a counter-argument to save your arse doesn't contribute to a good
    >> discussion.
    >>

    > I delete in the interests of bandwidth economy, it is part of my
    > ancestory. One can always look at the next post up in the thread.


    Yeah, right. Like your couisie Larry D'Loser, you delete in the interest of
    obfuscating the real issues and covering your tracks. Not gonna happen on
    my watch, you pathetic little scumbag.
    impossible, Aug 1, 2009
    #15
  16. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Peter Guest

    impossible wrote:
    >> "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    >> The 50 years would also restart for Microsoft's updates on Windows, etc.

    >
    > No. Minor revisions to an existing work by the copyright holder do not
    > perpetually extend copyright protection.


    The restarted copyright period applies to the update or bugfix, not to the
    whole of the original copyright material. Of course, the original material
    is defective without the bugfix (otherwise, you wouldn't need the bugfix).

    >>If the software copyright term were to be dropped to five years, while
    >> the original code would be 'out of copyright' after five years,
    >> subsequent modifications, bug fixes etc would still be 'in copyright'
    >> beyond that five years.

    >
    > No. A bug fix doesn't extend copyright protection either.


    The bugfix doesn't extend copyright protection for the original material,
    but the bugfix does have copyright protection in its own right.


    Peter
    Peter, Aug 2, 2009
    #16
  17. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Peter Guest

    peterwn wrote:
    > I delete in the interests of bandwidth economy, it is part of my
    > ancestory. One can always look at the next post up in the thread.


    Sounds like good practice, and polite netiquette to me.


    Peter
    Peter, Aug 2, 2009
    #17
  18. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    impossible Guest

    "Peter" <> wrote in message
    news:h535vd$3k9$-september.org...
    "impossible" <> wrote in message
    news:B3Bcm.210425$DP1.131812@attbi_s22...
    >>
    >> "impossible" <> wrote in message
    >> news:d5rcm.209742$DP1.171379@attbi_s22...
    >>>>> "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>> On Jul 30, 10:06 am, Allistar <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>>>>> > In message <>,
    >>>>>>>> > Allistar
    >>>>>>>> > wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> >> That would be quite cumbersome having a product where some of it
    >>>>>>>> >> (i.e.
    >>>>>>>> >> some lines of code) still have copyright but other bits of it do
    >>>>>>>> >> not.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> > No it wouldn't. You'd just put the whole thing under the GPL or
    >>>>>>>> > whatever
    >>>>>>>> > other licence you want. That's what "public domain" means--you
    >>>>>>>> > can
    >>>>>>>> > do
    >>>>>>>> > that.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> The GPL is only enforcable as long as copyright still exists on the
    >>>>>>>> code.
    >>>>>>>> Once copyright runs out, then the GPL can be ignored and people can
    >>>>>>>> do
    >>>>>>>> what
    >>>>>>>> they please. Or am I wrong in that?
    >>>>>>>> --
    >>>>
    >>>> Whoops! You deleted your daft comments claiming that copyright
    >>>> proytection was irrelevant to the GPL. Let's restore them to put this
    >>>> discussion in context.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Patents lasts for 14 years or so. Copyright lasts for 50+ years
    >>>>>>> after
    >>>>>>> creator's death (depending on country) and assignment of the
    >>>>>>> copyright
    >>>>>>> would not affect this duration.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> It is not a matter of 'ignoring' the GPL. When copyright runs out,
    >>>>>>> you can ignore the copyright.
    >>>>
    >>>> See? That was really dumb of you to say, right? Allow me to correct
    >>>> you.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> According to the GPL itsef (Copyright 2007 Free Software Foundation,
    >>>>>> Inc.),
    >>>>>> :
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
    >>>>>> copyright
    >>>>>> on the Program...."
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> That makes sense, because without copyright the there is no one who
    >>>>>> is
    >>>>>> recognized under law as having an exclusive right to set the terms of
    >>>>>> use
    >>>>>> for a given work. So when the term of the copyright expires, so do
    >>>>>> the
    >>>>>> rights granted under GPL. Modifications to the work would no longer
    >>>>>> require
    >>>>>> "copyright permission", and so the GPL would indeed become
    >>>>>> irrelevant.
    >>>>
    >>>>> That is right. Once copyright has expired, anyone can make use of the
    >>>>> work as they see fit, they do not need to rely on the GPL.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> >>
    >>>>>> Of course, you're the law student. Maybe you've discovered some
    >>>>>> ancient
    >>>>>> clause in the Dead Sea Scrolls that locks in a claim to copyright
    >>>>>> protection
    >>>>>> in perpetuity so long as the Force is on the right (or is it
    >>>>>> left?)side. But
    >>>>>> it looks to me like dropping the copyright term from 50 years to 5
    >>>>>> would
    >>>>>> pretty much gut the open-source community.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> This is another point that is missed. There is not a single GPL but
    >>>>> thousands if not millions of instances of the GPL just like there are
    >>>>> thousands of instances of the standard agreement form that real estate
    >>>>> agents use for house sales. Critics of the GPL seem to think there is
    >>>>> only one licence in existence.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Got one that isn't based on copyright protection? No, didn't think so.
    >>>>
    >>>>> When the GPL requrires someone to grant licence in the form of the GPL
    >>>>> and to publish the source code, the 50 years or so starts from then,
    >>>>> not when the original code was created.
    >>>>
    >>>> Let's be clear: If copyright on the original work has expired, no one
    >>>> has
    >>>> an exclusive right to require anyone to do anything with regard to that
    >>>> work. It's in the public domain -- as free as any software can possibly
    >>>> be. Neither the GPL nor any other license would any longer have the
    >>>> force
    >>>> of law. Should someone then come along and create a **significant
    >>>> change** to the public domain version that has the effect of creating a
    >>>> **substantially new work**, then obviously a new term of copyright
    >>>> begins.
    >>>>
    >>>>> The 50 years would also restart for Microsoft's updates on Windows,
    >>>>> etc.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> No. Minor revisions to an existing work by the copyright holder do not
    >>>> perpetually extend copyright protection.

    >


    > The restarted copyright period applies to the update or bugfix, not to the
    > whole of the original copyright material.


    Bug fixes do not constitute original works. Bugfix code is typically
    intertwined with the original, leaving you no valid basis to claim
    copyright protection.

    > Of course, the original material is defective without the bugfix
    > (otherwise, you wouldn't need the bugfix)


    If you're marketing a bug fix, you'd surely say that. But then anyone is
    entilted to "fix" public domain code for their own use -- kind of like
    writing your own "Happy Birthday" song verse. Good programmers will find
    something more worthwhile to do.

    >>>If the software copyright term were to be dropped to five years, while
    >>> the original code would be 'out of copyright' after five years,
    >>> subsequent modifications, bug fixes etc would still be 'in copyright'
    >>> beyond that five years.

    >>
    >> No. A bug fix doesn't extend copyright protection either.

    >
    > The bugfix doesn't extend copyright protection for the original material,
    > but the bugfix does have copyright protection in its own right.
    >
    >


    No. Bug fixes do not constitute original works and so they are not entitled
    to copyright protection.

    >>>>> After five years the original code would be
    >>>>> of limited use, hence my argument that a 5 year limit (which I never
    >>>>> suggested in the first place) would have little adverse effect on the
    >>>>> creators of GPL'd code, Windows XP, etc etc.
    >>>>
    >>>> Yeah, right. 2015: RedHat emerges as the world's #1 provider of
    >>>> copyright
    >>>> expiration date pop-ups. Good luck with that.

    >>
    >>> I can answer your comments very easily.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Apparently, you can only do that "easily" if you delete all your previous
    >> comments and mine. I understand, you've been caught out making up
    >> nonsense
    >> about copyright and the GPL, and it's inconvenient for you to have those
    >> facts staring you in the face. Carry on.
    >>
    >>> Agreed modification to the original code does not extend copyright to
    >>> the original code,

    >>
    >> Good, so you admit you were wrong. You can't fabricate a patch or bug
    >> fix
    >> every year and claim an extension of copyright protection on the original
    >> work.
    >>
    >>> but the modifications themselves are subject to
    >>> fresh copyright in favour of the creator of the modifications. That
    >>> copyright starts from when the modidications were created.

    >>
    >> Only if your "modifications" are original and substantial enough to
    >> create a
    >> new work that stands on its own. A new function, utility, add-in, driver,
    >> etc would qualify. Tweaking a few lines of code here and there would not.
    >>
    >>> This would
    >>> in due course lead to the situation where the original code is out of
    >>> copyright while the amendments remain in copyright. Amen.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Again, only if the "amendments" are original and substantial enough to
    >> create a new work that stands on its own.
    >>
    >>> Such a situation is no different from MS Windows which contains some
    >>> public domain (or virtually public domain) code such as the TCP/IP
    >>> stack (for the sake of clarity I do not mean GPL'd code). You will be
    >>> delighted to hear that the presence of such code does not nullify the
    >>> copyright of Windows at large.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Original works that stand on their own are entitled to copyright
    >> protection.
    >>
    >>> Even in the case of bug fixes, the creator of the fixes (eg Microsoft)
    >>> sometimes reserves rights to the fixes and may even require a fresh
    >>> EULA for their installation.

    >>
    >> But this doesn't extend the copyright on the original work as you have
    >> claimed.
    >>
    impossible, Aug 2, 2009
    #18
  19. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Peter Guest

    impossible wrote:
    > Bug fixes do not constitute original works. Bugfix code is typically
    > intertwined with the original, leaving you no valid basis to claim
    > copyright protection.


    It might be difficult to establish copyright for minor tweaks to existing
    code, but substantive work to replace or enhance the original work would
    qualify for copyright (for the new work, not the original).


    Peter
    Peter, Aug 2, 2009
    #19
  20. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    On Aug 3, 7:21 am, Peter <> wrote:
    > impossible wrote:
    > > Bug fixes do not constitute original works. Bugfix code is typically
    > > intertwined with the original, leaving you no valid basis to claim
    > > copyright protection.

    >
    > It might be difficult to establish copyright for minor tweaks to existing
    > code, but substantive work to replace or enhance the original work would
    > qualify for copyright (for the new work, not the original).
    >
    > Peter


    Agreed. Now watch "Impossible" try and have the 'last word' on this.
    In my case I am still waiting for the cops to raid my joint following
    his threatening language (which is just hot air).
    peterwn, Aug 2, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. GrailKing@oops!.Not.The.Realm.net

    How do you get copyright symbol in a picture using Irfanview?

    GrailKing@oops!.Not.The.Realm.net, Sep 1, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,117
    The Old Sourdough
    Sep 3, 2003
  2. geothermal

    Copyright questions ?

    geothermal, Apr 21, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    716
    geothermal
    Apr 24, 2004
  3. Jimmy

    Copyright violation in the UK?

    Jimmy, Jan 2, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    817
    Bobby
    Jan 3, 2005
  4. Colin B
    Replies:
    195
    Views:
    2,923
    Colin B
    Jan 19, 2007
  5. Gordy

    Copyleft - A stupid term?

    Gordy, Feb 11, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    948
    Bruce Sinclair
    Feb 15, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page