[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Big blow to proprietary linking nonsense.
From: |
RJack |
Subject: |
Re: Big blow to proprietary linking nonsense. |
Date: |
Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:55:53 -0000 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) |
Rex Ballard wrote:
On May 16, 2:52 pm, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
RJack <u...@example.net> writes:
7 wrote:
RJack the stupid 1 wrote:
You are confused. Modification even in uncreative ways is not a
right granted by copyright.
Actually, by default, ANY modification is a "derivative work" and all
rights to derivative works including the right to create and
distribute them - are controlled by the copyright owner. The
copyright owner may grant some permission to release derivative works
- such as the BSD license, but these permissions must be granted
explicitly.
The whole point of the Revised Copyright Act of 1976 and the Digital
Millenium Copyright Act of 1994 was to limit the ability of Judges to
define "fair use" at their discresssion.
Actually, the central goal of Congress concerning fair use was stated in
the House of Representatives' Report HR No. 94-1476. The courts were
given flexibility within the statutory guidelines:
"General intention behind the provision
The statement of the fair use doctrine in section 107 offers some
guidance to users in determining when the principles of the doctrine
apply. However, the endless variety of situations and combinations of
circumstances that can rise in particular cases precludes the
formulation of exact rules in the statute. The bill endorses the purpose
and general scope of the judicial doctrine of fair use, but there is no
disposition to freeze the doctrine in the statute, especially during a
period of rapid technological change. Beyond a very broad statutory
explanation of what fair use is and some of the criteria applicable to
it, their courts must be free to adapt the doctrine to particular
situations on a case-by-case basis. Section 107 is intended to restate
the present judicial doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or
enlarge it in any way."
It's worth noting that it was BECAUSE of the Revised Copyright Act of
1976 that Microsoft was able to exist and thrive the way it did.
If the basis for this summary judgement were allowed to stand as
legal precedent, based on the current lack of evidence that the
software was not "work for hire" - the lack of a negotiated contract
does not make it work for hire, because the defendant acknowledges
that they were still in progress of negotiating the contract, and
that contract negotiation broke down when the terms of the interim
agreement were changed.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
- Re: The great BusyBox fraud continues, (continued)
- Re: The great BusyBox fraud continues, Hyman Rosen, 2010/12/08
- Re: The great BusyBox fraud continues, RJack, 2010/12/08
- Message not available
- Re: The great BusyBox fraud continues, RJack, 2010/12/08
- Re: The great BusyBox fraud continues, Hyman Rosen, 2010/12/08
- Message not available
- Re: The SFLC and May 20 , 2010 Summary Judgment conference, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/12/08
- Re: Big blow to proprietary linking nonsense., Hyman Rosen, 2010/12/08
- Message not available
- Re: Big blow to proprietary linking nonsense., Hyman Rosen, 2010/12/08
- Re: Big blow to proprietary linking nonsense., Alexander Terekhov, 2010/12/08
- Re: Big blow to proprietary linking nonsense., Rex Ballard, 2010/12/08
- Re: Big blow to proprietary linking nonsense.,
RJack <=
Re: Big blow to GPL linking nonsense., Hyman Rosen, 2010/12/08
Re: Big blow to GPL linking nonsense., Rex Ballard, 2010/12/08