C503719@umcvmb.missouri.edu (Baird McIntosh) (06/22/89)
I was wondering what anyone's experience has been in getting programs
copyrighted prior to releasing them to the general populace. I am interested
in copyrighting some art/music created on my Amiga and I want to protect it
before I release it to others.
I know a lot of shareware and PD gets labelled with a (C) 19xx message
in the docs or in the menus of the actual program, but did any of you who have
included such a 'copyright' actually get a legal (like from a lawyer or court)
copyright put on the software? I am a little uninformed in this area.
As an example, and a side note, Kevin Clague's MANDELVROOM 2.0 has a
copyright message in one menu that says (C) Copyright 1987,1989 or something
close to that... BTW, G R E A T program Kevin (even tho I have suceeded in
locking up a couple of times -- no GURU, just a lock-up. ;-)
Baird McIntosh
# INTERNET- c503719@umcvmb.missouri.edu <-or-> BITNET- c503719@umcvmb.bitnet #
# "Don't tell me truth hurts, little girl, 'cause it hurts like hell." #
# - UNDERGROUND, by David Bowie / "USENET is not a network." - Eric Edwards #new@udel.EDU (Darren New) (06/23/89)
By putting the words Copyright 1989 Your Name in the opening screen of the program and in all printed documentation, you have a copyright on the program. Before you can sue for violation of copyright, you must register that copyright with the federal government, which basically entails filling out a form (no laywer needed) and sending it in with a copy (or two, I forget) of the work and a $25-$50 fee. Note that if you put the copyright notice on, and then someone copies it, and then you register it, you can still sue but you can't get some of the punitive (sp?) damages. It is not legal to use (C) or Copyrighted. The little c in a circle is OK (and is in the Amiga ROM fonts somewhere). The copyright gives you rights to control duplication, public performance, distribution (I'm not quite sure what this means), and creation of derivative works. If you say Public Domain then anyone can do anything they like with it. In other words, saying "This is Public Domain except that you can't sell it for money" is oxymoronic. -- Darren DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer. I just have a layman's knowledge about it.
shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) (06/23/89)
In article <18280@louie.udel.EDU> new@udel.EDU (Darren New) writes: >If you say Public Domain then anyone can do anything they like with >it. This means ANYTHING, folks... like adding a COMMENT "Copyright 1989 Sid Sleaze" which they can then legally enforce. (Of course, the original public domain version without the comment remains free.) >In other words, saying "This is Public Domain except that you can't >sell it for money" is oxymoronic. Just plain moronic. Deven -- shadow@[128.113.10.2] <shadow@pawl.rpi.edu> Deven T. Corzine (518) 272-5847 shadow@[128.113.10.201] <shadow@acm.rpi.edu> 2346 15th St. Pi-Rho America deven@rpitsmts.bitnet <userfxb6@rpitsmts> Troy, NY 12180-2306 <<tionen>> "Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible." - A.K.
kevin@uts.amdahl.com (Kevin Clague) (06/23/89)
In article <18195@louie.udel.EDU> C503719@umcvmb.missouri.edu (Baird McIntosh) writes: >I was wondering what anyone's experience has been in getting programs >copyrighted prior to releasing them to the general populace. I am interested >in copyrighting some art/music created on my Amiga and I want to protect it >before I release it to others. > I know a lot of shareware and PD gets labelled with a (C) 19xx message >in the docs or in the menus of the actual program, but did any of you who have >included such a 'copyright' actually get a legal (like from a lawyer or court) >copyright put on the software? I am a little uninformed in this area. You do not "need" to get anything from anyone to copyright your stuff. All that you must do is have your subject matter contain a properly formatted copyright statement, and poof, it is copyrighted. > As an example, and a side note, Kevin Clague's MANDELVROOM 2.0 has a >copyright message in one menu that says (C) Copyright 1987,1989 or something >close to that... BTW, G R E A T program Kevin (even tho I have suceeded in >locking up a couple of times -- no GURU, just a lock-up. ;-) Thanks.... Yes. MandelVroom still has some hang conditions in it. I'm working on it slowly, because I'm busy working on 3D HAM fractals at the moment. MandelVroom has a copyright notice that is "clearly visible upon program startup". Here at Amdahl the lawyers come around every year and re-educate us on proper copyright procedure, and the motivations for it. > >Baird McIntosh > > # INTERNET- c503719@umcvmb.missouri.edu <-or-> BITNET- c503719@umcvmb.bitnet # > # "Don't tell me truth hurts, little girl, 'cause it hurts like hell." # > # - UNDERGROUND, by David Bowie / "USENET is not a network." - Eric Edwards # -- UUCP: kevin@uts.amdahl.com or: {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,seismo,oliveb}!amdahl!kevin DDD: 408-737-5481 USPS: Amdahl Corp. M/S 249, 1250 E. Arques Av, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 [ Any thoughts or opinions which may or may not have been expressed ] [ herein are my own. They are not necessarily those of my employer. ]
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (06/23/89)
In article <18195@louie.udel.EDU> C503719@umcvmb.missouri.edu (Baird McIntosh) writes: |I was wondering what anyone's experience has been in getting programs |copyrighted prior to releasing them to the general populace. I am interested |in copyrighting some art/music created on my Amiga and I want to protect it |before I release it to others. | I know a lot of shareware and PD gets labelled with a (C) 19xx message |in the docs or in the menus of the actual program, but did any of you who have |included such a 'copyright' actually get a legal (like from a lawyer or court) |copyright put on the software? I am a little uninformed in this area. Programs can be registered with the Copyright Office whether published or unpublished. You don't need registration to copyright your work, though registration will give you more protection in the case of a lawsuit. For the best protection, the registration should be filed within 3 months from the date of publication. You can order the appropriate forms by calling the Copyright Office at (202)479-0700. Notice that now the US has joined the Berne Convention, so things might change somewhat in the near future. Most lawyers will tell you that in any case proper registration is still a good idea. -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Diga and Caligari!" -- Rick Unland -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (06/23/89)
In article <18280@louie.udel.EDU> new@udel.EDU (Darren New) writes: >By putting the words Copyright 1989 Your Name in the opening screen >of the program and in all printed documentation, you have a copyright >on the program. FALSE. You have the copyright the minute you "create" your work, no matter whether you have include the copyright notice. This was always true, though today it is even more, since the US has joined the Berne Convention. >Before you can sue for violation of copyright, you >must register that copyright with the federal government, which basically >entails filling out a form (no laywer needed) and sending it in with >a copy (or two, I forget) of the work and a $25-$50 fee. It is not the federal government but the Copyright Office, and the fee is only $10. >Note that if >you put the copyright notice on, and then someone copies it, and then you >register it, you can still sue but you can't get some of the >punitive (sp?) damages. Not entirely true. You have three (months) from publication date to register and get rights to punitive damages. >It is not legal to use (C) or Copyrighted. >The little c in a circle is OK (and is in the Amiga ROM fonts somewhere). Again, since the US has joined the Berne COnvention this is no longer entirely true, but to be on the safe side I would still do it. >The copyright gives you rights to control duplication, public performance, >distribution (I'm not quite sure what this means), Distribution is the right to control who can legally obtain and re-distribute your software. Licensing agreements usually entail giving distribution rights to other companies. > and creation of >derivative works. If you say Public Domain then anyone can do anything >they like with it. In other words, saying "This is Public Domain except that >you can't sell it for money" is oxymoronic. -- Darren Yep. Oximoronic looks good :-) >DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer. I just have a layman's knowledge about it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer either, though I have one and have registered copyrighted material. I found that getting advice from a "real" lawyer, though expensive, turns out to pay off down the line. -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Diga and Caligari!" -- Rick Unland -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
new@udel.EDU (Darren New) (06/24/89)
In article <SHADOW.89Jun22164310@daniel.pawl.rpi.edu> shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) writes: >In article <18280@louie.udel.EDU> new@udel.EDU (Darren New) writes: >>If you say Public Domain then anyone can do anything they like with >>it. >This means ANYTHING, folks... like adding a COMMENT "Copyright 1989 >Sid Sleaze" which they can then legally enforce. Actually, since a copyright has to be applied to "a work of original authorship" I don't think that this is correct. However, it is possible to (say) Amiga-ize something PD like EMACS and then copyright the derivative work. >>In other words, saying "This is Public Domain except that you can't >>sell it for money" is oxymoronic. >Just plain moronic. >Deven How about "uninformed"? Not everyone that is uninformed is moronic... -- Darren
shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) (06/26/89)
In article <18366@louie.udel.EDU> new@udel.EDU (Darren New) writes: >In article <SHADOW.89Jun22164310@daniel.pawl.rpi.edu> shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) writes: >>In article <18280@louie.udel.EDU> new@udel.EDU (Darren New) writes: >>>If you say Public Domain then anyone can do anything they like with >>>it. >>This means ANYTHING, folks... like adding a COMMENT "Copyright 1989 >>Sid Sleaze" which they can then legally enforce. >Actually, since a copyright has to be applied to "a work of original >authorship" I don't think that this is correct. I'm not sure, but I think it's still possible. Specifically, the copyright would be solely on the notice of copyright (the comment) as it is the only change from the PD program... but I believe it covers the entire derived work anyhow. >However, it is possible to (say) Amiga-ize something PD like EMACS >and then copyright the derivative work. Bzzt. Wrong answer, thank you for playing anyway. Emacs is NOT PD. Emacs is a product of the GNU effort by the Free Software Foundation, and is "copylefted." Specifically, it is covered by a very specific copyright and liscence which allows you to freely redistribute, use and modify the code provided you do not attempt to further restrict distribution or usage. This INCLUDES derived works. Now, whether Amiga versions of MicroEmacs or MG are technically "derived works" of GNU Emacs, I can't say for sure, but I would expect that they are. Even if NO code overlaps, I suspect that they are at least reverse- engineered from GNU Emacs is sufficient to consider them derived works. Regardless, "something PD like EMACS" is a false statement. So there. :-) >>>In other words, saying "This is Public Domain except that you can't >>>sell it for money" is oxymoronic. >>Just plain moronic. >How about "uninformed"? Not everyone that is uninformed is moronic... True, but then there's always the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" argument... (which I suppose is even appropriate in context) Deven -- shadow@[128.113.10.2] <shadow@pawl.rpi.edu> Deven T. Corzine (518) 272-5847 shadow@[128.113.10.201] <shadow@acm.rpi.edu> 2346 15th St. Pi-Rho America deven@rpitsmts.bitnet <userfxb6@rpitsmts> Troy, NY 12180-2306 <<tionen>> "Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible." - A.K.
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (06/26/89)
In article <SHADOW.89Jun26013653@daniel.pawl.rpi.edu> shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) writes: >>>In article <18280@louie.udel.EDU> new@udel.EDU (Darren New) writes: >>>>If you say Public Domain then anyone can do anything they like with >>>>it. >>>This means ANYTHING, folks... like adding a COMMENT "Copyright 1989 >>>Sid Sleaze" which they can then legally enforce. > >>Actually, since a copyright has to be applied to "a work of original >>authorship" I don't think that this is correct. > >I'm not sure, but I think it's still possible. Specifically, the >copyright would be solely on the notice of copyright (the comment) as >it is the only change from the PD program... but I believe it covers >the entire derived work anyhow. Adding a Copyright notice to "something" in the public domain doesn't make the work any less PD than it was before. Period. One can only copyright original work which is NOT in the public domain. Extensive changes to a PD work, can be copyrighted. Of course it all depends on the definition of "extensive" and this can only be decided on a case by case basis (somthing that usually happends in court :-) "Compilations" of PD works (like the Fish Disks) CAN be copyrighted, and therefore their distribution restricted. >> it is possible to (say) Amiga-ize something PD like EMACS >>and then copyright the derivative work. > >Bzzt. Wrong answer, thank you for playing anyway. Emacs is NOT PD. >Emacs is a product of the GNU effort by the Free Software Foundation, >and is "copylefted." Bzzt, WRONG answer, you too :-) It all depends on which "original" version of emacs you are talking about: jove-emacs, micro-emacs, Unipress Emacs, TOPS-10 Emacs, GNU Emacs? For example, Andy Finkel of Commodore modified David Conroy's PD Emacs and copyrighted it. It is part of the Extras disk. >Amiga versions of MicroEmacs or MG are technically "derived works" of >GNU Emacs, I can't say for sure, but I would expect that they are. Get your facts before you speak. At last count, no portions of MicroEmacs (the one that runs on ATARI, PC, Amiga and other micros) are derived from Stallman's GNU Emacs and therefore are absolutely not restricted by the FSF redistribution license. >Even if NO code overlaps, I suspect that they are at least reverse- >engineered from GNU Emacs is sufficient to consider them derived >works. Wrong again. Reverse engineering an editor is perfectly legal. Proof are the various versions of PD and commercial Emacs. The same has happened to "vi", too (The Amiga has two: Stevie (PD) and Z (commercial from MANX). Borland even went as far as building a "reconfigurable" editor that can be made to behave like the editor of your choice (Wordstar, WordPerfect, Emacs). >True, but then there's always the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" ^^^^^^^^^ >argument... (which I suppose is even appropriate in context) You seem to be as ignorant as the person you are accusing of being the same thing. Do a little more research next time, and don't pontificate when you have no basis (Suggestion: instead of saying "I can't say for sure, but I would expect ...", shut up or go out and do your research). -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Diga and Caligari!" -- Rick Unland -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) (06/26/89)
In article <18101@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >In article <SHADOW.89Jun26013653@daniel.pawl.rpi.edu> shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) writes: >>I'm not sure, but I think it's still possible. Specifically, the >>copyright would be solely on the notice of copyright (the comment) as >>it is the only change from the PD program... but I believe it covers >>the entire derived work anyhow. >Adding a Copyright notice to "something" in the public domain doesn't >make the work any less PD than it was before. Period. One can only >copyright original work which is NOT in the public domain. Extensive >changes to a PD work, can be copyrighted. Of course it all depends >on the definition of "extensive" and this can only be decided on a >case by case basis (somthing that usually happends in court :-) >"Compilations" of PD works (like the Fish Disks) CAN be copyrighted, >and therefore their distribution restricted. It doesn't make the *original* work any less PD. I already said that. But it does make the modified work "less PD"... Granted, addong ONLY a comment may be carrying it to extremes a bit, but an argument could be made that a simple comment is "code". And I know of no restriction which requires a author to give up rights even to trivial code added to a Public Domain program. Of course the original work is still in the public domain. But the author of the stupid, trivial comment is within his rights (again, to my alleged knowledge) to restrict distribution of that modification. (if someone stripped that comment, it would be back to the PD work instead, with no restrictions) Now, clearly, no one would actually bother to add just a comment, but adding some piece of functionality (large or small) is quite possible. >>> it is possible to (say) Amiga-ize something PD like EMACS >>>and then copyright the derivative work. >>Bzzt. Wrong answer, thank you for playing anyway. Emacs is NOT PD. >>Emacs is a product of the GNU effort by the Free Software Foundation, >>and is "copylefted." >Bzzt, WRONG answer, you too :-) It all depends on which "original" >version of emacs you are talking about: jove-emacs, micro-emacs, >Unipress Emacs, TOPS-10 Emacs, GNU Emacs? For example, Andy Finkel >of Commodore modified David Conroy's PD Emacs and copyrighted it. It >is part of the Extras disk. All he said was "something PD like EMACS", not "Micro-Emacs" or any other specific version, so I made not of the fact the GNU Emacs (the original Emacs [or if not, I challenge you to show me the version of Emacs than GNU Emacs was based on] (not I bet you will, too... *sigh*)) is NOT PD. Actually, I guess you could be right; GNU Emacs could have been based on some system's editor, but I've NEVER heard such a thing said. (but then, gcc is definitely modelled (externally) after your "standard" Unix cc...) >>Amiga versions of MicroEmacs or MG are technically "derived works" of >>GNU Emacs, I can't say for sure, but I would expect that they are. >Get your facts before you speak. At last count, no portions of >MicroEmacs (the one that runs on ATARI, PC, Amiga and other micros) >are derived from Stallman's GNU Emacs and therefore are absolutely >not restricted by the FSF redistribution license. You left out the "I don't know if" [Amiga versions...] I didn't claim they shared _code_... (though some could've easily been pulled) >>Even if NO code overlaps, I suspect that they are at least reverse- >>engineered from GNU Emacs is sufficient to consider them derived >>works. >Wrong again. Reverse engineering an editor is perfectly legal. Proof >are the various versions of PD and commercial Emacs. The same has >happened to "vi", too (The Amiga has two: Stevie (PD) and Z >(commercial from MANX). Borland even went as far as building a >"reconfigurable" editor that can be made to behave like the editor of >your choice (Wordstar, WordPerfect, Emacs). I never studied or researched the legal definition of a "derived work" as pertains to copyright law; I merely applied common sense (which is admittedly uncommon to find in legalese) and noted that it would seem reasonable to consider a reverse-engineered work to be "derived"... >>True, but then there's always the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" ^^^^^^^^^ >>argument... (which I suppose is even appropriate in context) >You seem to be as ignorant as the person you are accusing of being >the same thing. Do a little more research next time, and don't >pontificate when you have no basis (Suggestion: instead of saying "I >can't say for sure, but I would expect ...", shut up or go out and do >your research). I accused no one of ignorance; I just dropped that cliche to save someone else the effort of posting it. (it seemed an obvious thing for *someone* to say...) If it were important to me, I would have researched it. It is not critical, so I simply used what (perhaps flawed) knowledge I had. The point of the entire matter in the first place was solely to emphasize the fact that an author who places a work in the Public Domain gives up ALL rights to the program, unequivocably. Enough of this chain... don't bother to reply. it's not worth it. [I really shouldn't post when I've been up this long, my brain is fried. *sigh*] Deven -- shadow@[128.113.10.2] <shadow@pawl.rpi.edu> Deven T. Corzine (518) 272-5847 shadow@[128.113.10.201] <shadow@acm.rpi.edu> 2346 15th St. Pi-Rho America deven@rpitsmts.bitnet <userfxb6@rpitsmts> Troy, NY 12180-2306 <<tionen>> "Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible." - A.K.
jyegiguere@lion.waterloo.edu (Eric Giguere) (06/26/89)
In article <SHADOW.89Jun26013653@daniel.pawl.rpi.edu> shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) writes: [stuff about GNU Emacs not being PD deleted] > Now, whether >Amiga versions of MicroEmacs or MG are technically "derived works" of >GNU Emacs, I can't say for sure, but I would expect that they are. >Even if NO code overlaps, I suspect that they are at least reverse- >engineered from GNU Emacs is sufficient to consider them derived >works. Actually reverse-engineering isn't sufficient. A reverse-engineered program is an original program and hence is covered by copyright law. As someone pointed out, two people can copyright the same material providing they both came up with it independently and it is their original work. So if I made a complete list of the functions and commands of GNU Emacs and then proceeded to write my own version WITHOUT EXAMINING THE GNU SOURCE CODE, my code is protected by copyright. Unfortunately, these days the whole concept of reverse-engineering (good examples of which are GNU's Bison and Flex, which are better than the programs they imitate) is being increasingly muddied by so called "look-and-feel" copyrights and patents. (Note that patents, unlike copyrights, cannot be shared. The patentee has exclusive rights to the invention/design for a set number of years.) So while your code may not be in violation of copyright, the "look-and-feel" of it might since it's doubtful that your interface is your original, uninfluenced, work. Lawyers are having a field day with the computer industry. Eric Giguere 268 Phillip St #CL-46 For the curious: it's French ("jee-gair") Waterloo, Ontario N2L 6G9 Bitnet : GIGUERE at WATCSG (519) 746-6565 Internet: giguere@aries5.UWaterloo.ca "Nothing but urges from HELL!!"
nelson@udel.EDU (Mark Nelson) (06/26/89)
In article <SHADOW.89Jun26071107@daniel.pawl.rpi.edu> shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) writes: [Discussion of copyrighting your own version of Emacs, and whether [it would then be based on GNU Emacs, which is not PD, deleted. > >All he said was "something PD like EMACS", not "Micro-Emacs" or any >other specific version, so I made not of the fact the GNU Emacs (the >original Emacs [or if not, I challenge you to show me the version of >Emacs than GNU Emacs was based on] (not I bet you will, too... >*sigh*)) is NOT PD. Actually, I guess you could be right; GNU Emacs >could have been based on some system's editor, but I've NEVER heard >such a thing said. (but then, gcc is definitely modelled (externally) >after your "standard" Unix cc...) > The original, granddady of them all Emacs was written by Richard Stallman for a PDP-10 running the ITS operating system at MIT. It started as a collection of macros for the TECO editor (the MIT version of TECO, not the bowdlerized version from DEC). Hence Emacs from Editor MACros. So you can be pretty sure that any Emacs running on the Amiga shares zero code with the original :-). I don't know for sure if this Emacs was PD, but I suspect it was. Mark Nelson ...!rutgers!udel!nelson or nelson@udel.edu This function is occasionally useful as an argument to other functions that require functions as arguments. -- Guy Steele
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (06/26/89)
In article <SHADOW.89Jun26071107@daniel.pawl.rpi.edu> shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) writes: > >>Adding a Copyright notice to "something" in the public domain doesn't >>make the work any less PD than it was before. Period. One can only > >It doesn't make the *original* work any less PD. I already said that. >But it does make the modified work "less PD"... Granted, addong ONLY >a comment may be carrying it to extremes a bit, but an argument could >be made that a simple comment is "code". And I know of no restriction >which requires a author to give up rights even to trivial code added >to a Public Domain program. Of course the original work is still in >the public domain. But the author of the stupid, trivial comment is >within his rights (again, to my alleged knowledge) to restrict >distribution of that modification. (if someone stripped that comment, >it would be back to the PD work instead, with no restrictions) Now, >clearly, no one would actually bother to add just a comment, but >adding some piece of functionality (large or small) is quite possible. Pretty thin ice and a bad analogy to boot. First of all, the courts have held that the amount of changes required to make a program different from another is about 30%. If you take a PD program and add a few lines of code, it's still considered PD. Don't argue with me, I dont care. This is what the courts have held. The argumrnt that you could add a comment and claim it's yours is also pretty dumb, as while it's true for the SOURCE only, you have no way of showing the binary contains your comment. You are correct about your modifications are subject to your own copyright. >I never studied or researched the legal definition of a "derived work" >as pertains to copyright law; I merely applied common sense (which is >admittedly uncommon to find in legalese) and noted that it would seem >reasonable to consider a reverse-engineered work to be "derived"... The set of common sense and the law is not a union. ``It doesnt have to be fair or make sense, it just has to be legal'' James J. Coyle in People vs. Brown Show Co. -- New Zealand. Where sheep outnumber people eighty to one. richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
riley@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) (06/26/89)
In article <SHADOW.89Jun26013653@daniel.pawl.rpi.edu> shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) writes: >Bzzt. Wrong answer, thank you for playing anyway. Emacs is NOT PD. >Emacs is a product of the GNU effort by the Free Software Foundation, >and is "copylefted." Several other people have already pointed out that there are *many* editors called emacs, and GNU emacs is not the original. >Specifically, it is covered by a very specific >copyright and liscence [...] >This INCLUDES derived works. Now, whether >Amiga versions of MicroEmacs or MG are technically "derived works" of >GNU Emacs, I can't say for sure, but I would expect that they are. >Even if NO code overlaps, I suspect that they are at least reverse- >engineered from GNU Emacs is sufficient to consider them derived >works. Stallman would have a fit. Such an extended copyright on "derived works" essentially amounts to the same thing as Apple's "Look & Feel" copyright, which rms and the FSF are adamantly opposed to. In fact, most of the GNU software is "derived", in this sense--they copy the interfaces of popular Unix (TM) programs which AT&T or Berkeley hold copyrights to. -Dan Riley (riley@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu, cornell!batcomputer!riley) -Wilson Lab, Cornell U. I thought about directing followups to gnu.gcc, but that would be cruel :-).
?) Seaman) (06/27/89)
In article <18058@usc.edu>, papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: < In article <18280@louie.udel.EDU> new@udel.EDU (Darren New) writes: < >Before you can sue for violation of copyright, you < >must register that copyright with the federal government, which basically < >entails filling out a form (no laywer needed) and sending it in with < >a copy (or two, I forget) of the work and a $25-$50 fee. < < It is not the federal government but the Copyright Office, and the fee is < only $10. I was once told (by someone who claimed to have advised by an attorney) that if you were to take your work (i.e., source code, artwork, or whatever), put in an envelope (or diskette mailer), seal it in such a way that a postal mark would cover the seal, and mail it to yourself, that this would be binding evidence of copyright in court. Does this still hold under the Berne Convention? < >Note that if < >you put the copyright notice on, and then someone copies it, and then you < >register it, you can still sue but you can't get some of the < >punitive (sp?) damages. < < Not entirely true. You have three (months) from publication date to register < and get rights to punitive damages. Do you have the responsibility to prove the date of publication? I guess what I am curious about is source code (copyrighted) that is distributed via Usenet (or other networks). After three months, it might be difficult prove original distribution date. Or, more importantly, does posting to Usenet constitute publication? < >It is not legal to use (C) or Copyrighted. < >The little c in a circle is OK (and is in the Amiga ROM fonts somewhere). < < Again, since the US has joined the Berne Convention this is no longer < entirely true, but to be on the safe side I would still do it. Are you sure about this? I've seen a number of printed manuals use '(C)', primarily since the printing mechanism didn't support the 'cirle c' symbol. < >DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer. I just have a layman's knowledge about it. < DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer either, though I have one and have registered < copyrighted material. I found that getting advice from a "real" lawyer, < though expensive, turns out to pay off down the line. DISCLAIMER: Amen. < -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -- Chris (Insert phrase here) Seaman | ___-/^\-___ bIyIn nI' je chep. crs@cpsc6a.att.com <or> | //__--\O/--__\\ (Look it up ...!att!cpsc6a!crs | // \\ in your The Home of the Killer Smiley | `\ /' Klingon Dictionary)
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (06/27/89)
In article <556@cpsc6b.cpsc6a.att.com> crs@cpsc6b.cpsc6a.att.com (Chris (Is it Friday yet?!?!?) Seaman) writes: >In article <18058@usc.edu>, papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >< It is not the federal government but the Copyright Office, and the fee is >< only $10. > >I was once told (by someone who claimed to have advised by an attorney) that >if you were to take your work (i.e., source code, artwork, or whatever), >put in an envelope (or diskette mailer), seal it in such a way that a >postal mark would cover the seal, and mail it to yourself, that this >would be binding evidence of copyright in court. Does this still hold >under the Berne Convention? This has been done before, BUT it is not equivalent to copyright registration, i.e. in an infringment lawsuit there is no way to recover punitive damages (only 'actual" damages can be collected and these are usually pretty small). >Do you have the responsibility to prove the date of publication? I guess >what I am curious about is source code (copyrighted) that is distributed >via Usenet (or other networks). After three months, it might be difficult >prove original distribution date. Or, more importantly, does posting >to Usenet constitute publication? Yes, posting source code on Usenet (or BIX, or Compuserve, etc..) constitutes publication. >Are you sure about this? I've seen a number of printed manuals use '(C)', >primarily since the printing mechanism didn't support the 'cirle c' symbol. Since since has been reashed before aat least 20 times, and it usually starts an entire new thread, I WON'T comment on that. Ask your lawyer. -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Diga and Caligari!" -- Rick Unland -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) (06/27/89)
In article <17126@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >Pretty thin ice and a bad analogy to boot. Well, thank you very little. >First of all, the courts have held that the amount of changes required >to make a program different from another is about 30%. If you take >a PD program and add a few lines of code, it's still considered PD. >Don't argue with me, I dont care. This is what the courts have held. Fine. I stated no legal definitions or precedents, knowing of none specifically. 30% seems reasonable, for the work as a whole. >The argument that you could add a comment and claim it's yours is >also pretty dumb, as while it's true for the SOURCE only, you have >no way of showing the binary contains your comment. Quite so, part of why I said the comment alone is ridiculously extreme... it's gone from the resultant binary. Still, it was never the point. >You are correct about your modifications are subject to your >own copyright. I should hope so... (getting sick of making disputed statements in the middle of the night) >The set of common sense and the law is not a union. This is very true. >``It doesnt have to be fair or make sense, it just has to be legal'' > James J. Coyle in People vs. Brown Show Co. Hmm. Deven -- shadow@[128.113.10.2] <shadow@pawl.rpi.edu> Deven T. Corzine (518) 272-5847 shadow@[128.113.10.201] <shadow@acm.rpi.edu> 2346 15th St. Pi-Rho America deven@rpitsmts.bitnet <userfxb6@rpitsmts> Troy, NY 12180-2306 <<tionen>> "Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible." - A.K.
new@udel.EDU (Darren New) (06/28/89)
In article <556@cpsc6b.cpsc6a.att.com> crs@cpsc6b.cpsc6a.att.com (Chris (Is it Friday yet?!?!?) Seaman) writes: >In article <18058@usc.edu>, papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >I was once told (by someone who claimed to have advised by an attorney) that >if you were to take your work (i.e., source code, artwork, or whatever), >put in an envelope (or diskette mailer), seal it in such a way that a >postal mark would cover the seal, and mail it to yourself, that this >would be binding evidence of copyright in court. Does this still hold >under the Berne Convention? Funny... My lawer told me not to waste my money on such postage. Hmmmm.... >Or, more importantly, does posting >to Usenet constitute publication? As I understand it, anyone seeing it outside of the author(s) constitutes publication. In other words, as long as it stays in your company, you are OK, but if you take a listing home to show your friend your neat new kludge, that is publication. >< >DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer. I just have a layman's knowledge about it. >< DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer either, though I have one and have registered >DISCLAIMER: Amen. DISCLAIMER: Ditto. -- Darren
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (06/28/89)
Darren, Try to learn how to use the news software, and please do not quote others (myself in this case) while including somebody else's quote (Chris's in the instance). Thank you. -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Diga and Caligari!" -- Rick Unland -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) (07/02/89)
In article <14731@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jyegiguere@lion.waterloo.edu (Eric Giguere) writes: > >Actually reverse-engineering isn't sufficient. A reverse-engineered program >is an original program and hence is covered by copyright law. > [...] Unfortunately, these days the whole concept of >reverse-engineering [...] is being increasingly muddied by >so called "look-and-feel" copyrights and patents. Nice article. One point no one has covered directly is the meaning of "reverse-engineering". If I do a work-alike of something, without basing the implementation on the source *or* binary of the original, then until recently that was considered good enough to be original work. (As Eric points out, look and feel lawsuits have brought even that into question.) But the important point I wanted to bring out is that if you "reverse- engineer" something by, say, disassembling it, studying the result, and writing a new program based on the disassembly, then you have definitely created a derived work, and the copyright on it belongs to the holder of the original copyright. This is well tested in the courts, although as with any issue there are questions about to what degree the derivative was based on the original. But the general principle is quite similar to translation of a book into another language. If it is a faithful translation, then the new version is a derived work. This point is important to my company. We create faithful translations of 8086 programs into 68020/80836/88000/etc programs. The result is still owned by the copyright holder of the original program, which means that we can either obtain a distribution license from them, or else simply sell the *translator*. Without a license, we cannot sell the translation itself. BTW we're doing both: obtaining distribution license from some companies, licensing our translator to some other s/w houses, and additionally selling the translator to end users to cover the rest of the cases. (The 1978 copyright law allows purchasers of s/w to make copies as necessary for normal use, so they can legally use our translator to e.g. run Lotus 123 on a Sun so long as they don't use the original on a PC, which would presumably violate their single cpu license.) Doug -- Doug Merritt {pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Professional Wildeyed Visionary
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (07/05/89)
Re: all the banter about EMACS' genesis ...
I still have the ITS-style EMACS running on two of my DEC-20 systems and,
like most of the good software of the era of the 60's and 70's, is "PD" in the
sense its development was funded by public monies (i.e. our taxes).
In any event, the earliest version I still have online has this title page
in its docs:
" MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE LABORATORY
AI Memo 555 5 September 1980
EMACS MANUAL FOR TWENEX USERS
by
Richard M. Stallman
A reference manual
for the extensible, customizable, self-documenting
real-time display editor
This manual corresponds to EMACS version 150
This report describes work done at the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Support for the laboratory's research is
provided in part by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Department of
Defense under Office of Naval Research contract N00014-75-C-0643.
"
I say "PD software" in this context in the same way the 1964 "Project GENIE"
software (at UCB, on SDS 930), also ARPA/DoD funded, was freely available and
was used, in fact, to start both Tymshare, Inc. and Comshare, Inc. Whenever
we (Tymshare) needed a software update, I just drove up to UCB, walked into
the computer room, mounted my tape, dumped the whole system, and drove back to
Palo Alto with all the goodies! :-)
"TWENEX" is a word-pun, meaning the DEC-20 superset of Tenex (from BBN) which
was the virtual-memory demand paged version of the PDP-10.
The first LISP-based Emacs variant appeared on the Multics system (as I recall).
"Somewhere" online I have a paper describing how the MIT-TECO macro extensions
created by many people over an 8-10 year period were collected by RMS to
create the first cohesive body of Editing Macros ==> EMACS circa 1977-1978.
I still daily use the DEC-20 version (actually, up to version 16x something
now) along with the latest (18.54) GNU Emacs. The GNU EMACS is, of course, a
far greater and better superset (of the DEC-20 version), but the two have the
same "look and feel." Both are distributed with full source; I received my
first copy of TWENEX EMACS directly from Richard Stallman (he literally handed
me the tape), and the GNU versions I uucp from osu-cis.
Other "mainframe" versions of EMACS include those from Gosling and Unipress;
I've tried those on my VAX, but switched back to GNU EMACS which, for my
purposes, is more featureful and reliable. The #^$%^& stack dumps from the
Unipress version, after using ^C in a spawned sub-process, render it totally
unusable in my opinion.
The GNU EMACS works fine on my 3B1 (UNIXPC) systems which means it should work
fine on the AMIGA-UNIX too.
Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]