[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"
From: |
Hyman Rosen |
Subject: |
Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception" |
Date: |
Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:44:20 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) |
7 wrote:
Really fool?
Read again and replace method with composition.
<http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf>
What Is Not Protected by Copyright?
....
• Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts,
principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a
description, explanation, or illustration
If the compiler generated the same identical piece of code each
time for a switch statement, it's possible that the author of the
code could have copyright in it, but not if that code was the only
way to do the required operation.
As I write the assembler code for how a switch statement is implemented,
then I have copyright over it no matter how it gets subsequently used.
<http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ31.pdf>
Copyright protection extends to a description, explanation, or
illustration of an idea or system, assuming that the requirements
of the copyright law are met. Copyright in such a case protects
the particular literary or pictorial expression chosen by the
author. However, it gives the copyright owner no exclusive rights
in the idea, method, or system involved.
Suppose, for example, that an author writes a book explaining a
new system for food processing. The copyright in the book, which
comes into effect at the moment the work is fixed in a tangible
form, will prevent others from publishing the text and
illustrations describing the author’s ideas for machinery,
processes, and merchandising methods. But it will not give the
author any rights to prevent others from adopting the ideas for
commercial purposes or from developing or using the machinery,
processes, or methods described in the book.
You need to stop embarrassing yourself with displays of ignorance.
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", (continued)
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Hyman Rosen, 2009/01/29
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", 7, 2009/01/29
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Hyman Rosen, 2009/01/30
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Rjack, 2009/01/30
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Hyman Rosen, 2009/01/30
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Rjack, 2009/01/30
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Hyman Rosen, 2009/01/30
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", 7, 2009/01/30
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Hyman Rosen, 2009/01/30
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", 7, 2009/01/30
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception",
Hyman Rosen <=
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Rjack, 2009/01/30
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", 7, 2009/01/30
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Rjack, 2009/01/30
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Barry Margolin, 2009/01/30
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Hyman Rosen, 2009/01/31
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Chris Ahlstrom, 2009/01/29
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", David Kastrup, 2009/01/29
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Alexander Terekhov, 2009/01/29
Re: [Idiot] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", chrisv, 2009/01/30