Re: [ros-dev] Re: New OS built on ReactOS and WinuxOS technology!

[Quandary]

On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 08:20:24AM -0400, Michael B.
Trausch wrote:

<snip>

>   (Another aside:  The Foundation can, at its
>  discretion, create an official "layout" for the
>  installer CD and then Copyright that layout, such
>  that nobody else can use it.  While it's possible,
>  it can effectively "cramp" the software and
>  innovation surrounding it, and it's not advisable. 
>  Others then must choose different "layouts" for
>  their installers of their derived works, and this
>  would require heavy modifications to installers and
>  the like to find files in new locations.) 
I call BS. The Lotus 1-2-3 fiasco and the Apple vs. MS
suit are the two things that come immediately to mind
as legal precedence. You can't copyright a "layout"
(read: look and feel, menu structure, screen order,
etc.). If you are referring to directory layout on the
disk itself, I think you will have a VERY hard time
trying to argue that it's copyrightable -- since
layout is effectively the command-line look-and-feel
for a given disk. You don't have to look far for proof
on that, either; moving between various *ix distros,
it's easy to get lost when one distro stores its files
in a different place from where you're expecting.

If you can show me legal precedence for your
statements, I'll be happy to reconsider my stance. I
assume if you're making these claims, you have
something to back them up, and I'm interested in 
hearing what your support is.

<snip>

>   A little bit about Copyright Law, now.  A developer
>  holds copyright to the portions of the code that
>  (s)he contributed to the project, and that is all. 
>  The group that is responsible for putting it
>  together, then owns the copyright on the layout, and
>  so forth.  So, if releases are the Foundation's job,
>  then whether they claim their Copyright or not, it
>  is, in fact, their Copyright.  If someone other then
>  the Foundation packages it for the ReactOS web site,
>  then *THEY* hold the Copyright, and they can
>  therefore claim that they are "the" Copyright holder
>  for the Official Distribution of the ReactOS
>  project. 
Again, I'm going to call BS. You don't get copyright
on an aggregation of work. If I went and copied all
the articles (and ONLY the articles) out of a
newspaper that ran only syndicated stories, the real
copyright owners would have to come after me -- the
newspaper could not. The only way the paper could come
after me is if I accidentally copied content that (1)
one of their writers wrote as a "work for hire," and
that the paper holds the copyright to, or (2) I
inadvertently copied one of their trade/service marks,
implying their endorsement of the copied content when
no such endorsement exists.

<snip>

I'm not a lawyer. If you can show me something in
copyright law (and, to be clean, I'm talking US
copyright law) that proves me wrong, I'll be happy to
either adjust my argument or, if I'm outright wrong,
eat my words. However, I have spent some quality time
with title 17 (looking for loopholes), and I'm pretty
confident that I'm on-target.


Cheers,

-- Travis

Legal precedence (1-2-3, Apple vs. MS):
http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/6805/articles/int-prop/software-copyright.html

Title 17 US Copyright Law
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/



		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html

[Steven Edwards]

Hi,

--- Quandary <ai2097(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>   I call BS. The Lotus 1-2-3 fiasco and the Apple vs.
> MS
>  suit are the two things that come immediately to mind
>  as legal precedence. You can't copyright a "layout"
>  (read: look and feel, menu structure, screen order,
>  etc.). If you are referring to directory layout on the
>  disk itself, I think you will have a VERY hard time
>  trying to argue that it's copyrightable -- since
>  layout is effectively the command-line look-and-feel
>  for a given disk. You don't have to look far for proof
>  on that, either; moving between various *ix distros,
>  it's easy to get lost when one distro stores its files
>  in a different place from where you're expecting.
>  
>  If you can show me legal precedence for your
>  statements, I'll be happy to reconsider my stance. I
>  assume if you're making these claims, you have
>  something to back them up, and I'm interested in 
>  hearing what your support is. 
You are correct as far as I read it but IANAL. I don't think look and feel or layout
is
copyrightable. Sure you can publish a layout spec and that spec is now a copyright work
but not
the layout itself.
 
>   Again, I'm going to call BS. You don't get
> copyright
>  on an aggregation of work. If I went and copied all
>  the articles (and ONLY the articles) out of a
>  newspaper that ran only syndicated stories, the real
>  copyright owners would have to come after me -- the
>  newspaper could not. The only way the paper could come
>  after me is if I accidentally copied content that (1)
>  one of their writers wrote as a "work for hire," and
>  that the paper holds the copyright to, or (2) I
>  inadvertently copied one of their trade/service marks,
>  implying their endorsement of the copied content when
>  no such endorsement exists. 
Correct also as far as I can tell.

Thanks
Steven


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Michael B. Trausch]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Quandary wrote:
>   
>  I call BS. The Lotus 1-2-3 fiasco and the Apple vs. MS suit are the
>  two things that come immediately to mind as legal precedence. You
>  can't copyright a "layout" (read: look and feel, menu structure,
>  screen order, etc.). If you are referring to directory layout on the 
>  disk itself, I think you will have a VERY hard time trying to argue
>  that it's copyrightable -- since layout is effectively the
>  command-line look-and-feel for a given disk. You don't have to look
>  far for proof on that, either; moving between various *ix distros, 
>  it's easy to get lost when one distro stores its files in a different
>  place from where you're expecting.
>  
There was no direct layout issues there.  If you'd like to see an
example such as what I've described, you may take a look at OpenBSD's
use of this:

	http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq3.html#ISO

This is something that the OpenBSD people (specifically, Theo de Raadt)
have held for years to help use the law to provide a means of securing
their distribution and making it official.

It is protected by Copyright because it is subject to Title 17, Chapter
1, Section 102, Paragraph (a):

(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in
original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression,
now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived,
reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid
of a machine or device.

The file-system layout of the ISO image that the OpenBSD project has is
not a "look and feel" of anything, it is a particular layout of a
filesystem image.  Saying that they cannot copyright an image of a
filesystem is like saying that you cannot copyright an image taken with
a camera:  You cannot copyright the concept of ISO or JPG, for example,
but you can copyright one particular incarnation of an ISO or JPG, in a
particular pattern of bits, as a compliation.  Walnut Creek and other
CD-compilations have done this for years.  The CD Compilation gets the
copyright, not the general system.

>   
>  Again, I'm going to call BS. You don't get copyright on an
>  aggregation of work. If I went and copied all the articles (and ONLY
>  the articles) out of a newspaper that ran only syndicated stories,
>  the real copyright owners would have to come after me -- the 
>  newspaper could not. The only way the paper could come after me is if
>  I accidentally copied content that (1) one of their writers wrote as
>  a "work for hire," and that the paper holds the copyright to, or (2)
>  I inadvertently copied one of their trade/service marks, implying
>  their endorsement of the copied content when no such endorsement
>  exists.
>  
Copyright on an "aggregation of work," as you have called it falls under
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 103, Paragraphs (a) and (b): Subject matter
of copyright: Compilations and Derivative Works.  See text:

(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes
compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing
preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any
part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.

(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to
the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished
from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply
any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such
work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope,
duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the
preexisting material.

>  
>  I'm not a lawyer. If you can show me something in copyright law (and,
>  to be clean, I'm talking US copyright law) that proves me wrong, I'll
>  be happy to either adjust my argument or, if I'm outright wrong, eat
>  my words. However, I have spent some quality time with title 17
>  (looking for loopholes), and I'm pretty confident that I'm on-target.
>   
Nor am I an attorney; however, it is a matter which I've conferred on in
the past.  The protections are there in the most basic of Copyright Law,
also enforced internationally.

	- Mike

- --
Michael B. Trausch                                     fd0man(a)gmail.com
Web: http://fd0man.theunixplace.com/        Jabber: mtrausch(a)jabber.com
Phone: [phone]                  FAX (US Only): 1-866-806-4647
=======================================================================
  Do you have PGP or GPG?  Key at pgp.mit.edu, Please Encrypt E-Mail!

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFCqFw6PXInbkqM7nwRA4PIAJ0bX4n5iwkVqAKcnZDisJS83DOBHACgjp/P
> mRnfyEZYNMSabS3k00gvV/w=
> =yOJ4
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[mf]

Michael B. Trausch wrote:
>   also enforced internationally. 
Except Hong Kong ;).