Aharonian's theory of non-copyrightability of software
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
roddixon at cyberspaces.org
Wed Apr 27 13:30:00 UTC 2005
Greg can defend himself, but some of his arguments are accurate, if you
trace the historical development of the application of copyright law to
software (computer programs), which dates as far back as 1967. The initial
formal application of copyright law to "software" is dominated with
confusion and inadvertent decisionmaking. Google the Contu Report for
exhibit 1. Moreover, there are numerous law journal articles that
ostensibly raise points quite similar to Greg's. At bottom, most, but,
not all, courts have not accepted these arguments when applying copyright
law to software. What these implications have for open source software may
be limited to issues regarding the scope of copyright, but could also mean
that an open source software copyright license will not reach aspects of
source code not subject to copyright -- whether they be deemed methods,
processes, ideas or matters of fair use.
...... Original Message .......
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:03:05 -0700 Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:
>We've discussed this before. I made it clear that I felt you were
>parsing the cited law incorrectly. Larry independently told you the same
>thing. At this point, you'd have to back your assertions up with real
>cases in order for anyone to take them seriously. Show us a real case
>that has gone through appeal in which a judge has found a Java method to
>be uncopyrightable due to 17 USC 102b. Nobody's willing to buy
>speculation on the future behavior of a judge based upon what seems so
>clearly to be a flawed reading of the law. If you can't show us a case,
>please assume that there is no hope of winning us over, and bring this
>up again when you have better evidence.
More information about the License-discuss