Qt/Embedded

[kmself at ix.netcom.com]

on Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 05:29:20PM -0800, David Johnson (david at usermode.org) wrote:
> On Friday 17 November 2000 01:20 am, kmself at ix.netcom.com wrote:
> 
> > The idea is that, if a program is a work, and if (as the courts have
> > held, in Mai v. Peak) a program in memory meets the fixed and
> > tangible requirements of copyright law, and is therefore a copy
> > under copyright law, then a program linked to a library at runtime
> > is a derivative work.
> 
> I've heard this before, but I've always dismissed it as hearsay. I
> will have to look up Mai v Peak. The implications of this are
> mind-boggling! Does Stephen King have rights to my brain because I've
> read his books and they're now in my memory?

The legal test of copyrightability (what is copyrightable) is "original
works of authorship, fixed in a tangible medium" [1].  Or at least the
second part of that.

    "Original" -- not a copy of another work.
    "Authorship" -- some creative threshold (however low) must exist.
    "Fixed" -- persisting over some period of time.
    "Tangible" -- capable of being perceived by others.

Your own thoughts might meet the first three tests, but fail the fourth
-- there is not yet a mindreading machine.  What the LoC and/or Congress
will decide when this time comes, I cannot say.

IA(S)NAL

(still)

[1] http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html#wwp

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>     http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
 Evangelist, Zelerate, Inc.                      http://www.zelerate.org
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?      There is no K5 cabal
   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/        http://www.kuro5hin.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20001117/524015bd/attachment.sig>