[License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing pages

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Sat Jun 9 08:53:18 UTC 2012

Quoting Chris Travers (chris at metatrontech.com):

> Not exclusively.  I cited cases (Lexmark, Sony, etc) where expressive
> elements were included without permission but this was held to be de
> minimis (Lexmark) or fair use (Sony, Galoob), or allowed on other
> grounds.

Yes, affirmative defences and all that.  Now, if you're entirely done
with typical computerist extreme mania over edge cases and exceptions....

> Hence my initial point of copyright only applying to the extent that
> the function and expressive elements are separable....

Look, we know all that.  However, that's irrelevant to the alleged
NuSphere 'case' that was hastily settled out of culpable embarrassment.
If you cannot see the obvious literal reproduction of copyright-eligible
expressive elements in the published work, I cannot help you.  Either
way, I see no point in pursuing the matter further.

> So if you see the Gemini Engine as a piece of software interoperating
> with MySQL through a defined API, then static linking seems to my mind
> to be creating a compiled work, not a derivative one. 

Dream on.

> I don't think that works. 

Read caselaw.  I'm done.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list