> What these implications have for open source software may > be limited to issues regarding the scope of copyright, but could also mean > that an open source software copyright license will not reach aspects of > source code not subject to copyright -- whether they be deemed methods, > processes, ideas or matters of fair use. Why should our copyright licenses reach that far? Do we need to accept Greg's arguments to reach that conclusion? /Larry Rosen > -----Original Message----- > From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [mailto:roddixon@cyberspaces.org] > Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 6:30 AM > To: Bruce Perens; Gregory Aharonian > Cc: 'cody koeninger'; lrosen@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: Aharonian's theory of non-copyrightability of software > > Greg can defend himself, but some of his arguments are accurate, if you > trace the historical development of the application of copyright law to > software (computer programs), which dates as far back as 1967. The initial > formal application of copyright law to "software" is dominated with > confusion and inadvertent decisionmaking. Google the Contu Report for > exhibit 1. Moreover, there are numerous law journal articles that > ostensibly raise points quite similar to Greg's. At bottom, most, but, > not all, courts have not accepted these arguments when applying copyright > law to software. What these implications have for open source software may > be limited to issues regarding the scope of copyright, but could also mean > that an open source software copyright license will not reach aspects of > source code not subject to copyright -- whether they be deemed methods, > processes, ideas or matters of fair use. > > -Rod > ------------ > Rod Dixon > www.cyberspaces.org > > ...... Original Message ....... > On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:03:05 -0700 Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> wrote: > >Greg, > > > >We've discussed this before. I made it clear that I felt you were > >parsing the cited law incorrectly. Larry independently told you the same > >thing. At this point, you'd have to back your assertions up with real > >cases in order for anyone to take them seriously. Show us a real case > >that has gone through appeal in which a judge has found a Java method to > >be uncopyrightable due to 17 USC 102b. Nobody's willing to buy > >speculation on the future behavior of a judge based upon what seems so > >clearly to be a flawed reading of the law. If you can't show us a case, > >please assume that there is no hope of winning us over, and bring this > >up again when you have better evidence. > > > > Thanks > > > > Bruce > >