Subject: Re: Copy-Back License draft for discussion
From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 08:35:27 -0400

Gregory Aharonian scripsit:

> As the bible of copyright, Nimmer, says, software copyright is "tacitly
> assumed" to be in the statutes.  The statutes (102b) do say that
> processes and methods (like Java methods) are uncopyrightable
> "regardless of form".  It seems to me that an actual statute trumps a
> tacit assumption.

That would be a sound argument if there were any shred of evidence
that "methods" in the Copyright Act meant what it means in Java and
other OO languages.  Fortunately, there isn't.  It means "ways of
doing things", that's all.

(A fine example of how judges aren't CPUs, Bruce.)

-- 
Business before pleasure, if not too bloomering long before.
        --Nicholas van Rijn
                John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
                        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan  http://www.reutershealth.com