[License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source license chooser choosealicense.com

[Lawrence Rosen]

John Cowan wrote:
> In any case, I am speaking here of literal copying only.

In that case, what's the problem you're hypothesizing? Every FOSS license
permits literal copying, and no FOSS license imposes a copyleft obligation
on any *other* work just because of making literal copies of the FOSS work. 

> Why bring up linking?  My hypos have to do with source-code 
> modification, not with linking.

Modified source code solely to accomplish interworking? That's almost the
same as creating a functional "link" between two separate programs but
instead by patching one or the other for that functional purpose only. I
contend that the differences of the methods of interworking are largely
irrelevant to the analysis.

Modified source code to change the program and its expression? That sounds
like a derivative work. 

In any event, neither is "literal copying". 

/Larry


-----Original Message-----
From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan at mercury.ccil.org] 
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 12:27 PM
To: lrosen at rosenlaw.com; license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source
license chooser choosealicense.com

Lawrence Rosen scripsit:

> They will refer you to the confusing
> "abstraction-filtration-comparison" tests that are used in the U.S.
> courts to distinguish functional from expressive content.

Some U.S. courts.  What is more, the AFC test sounds good in theory, but is
decidedly hard to apply in practice.  In any case, I am speaking here of
literal copying only.

> when talking about the principles of copyright law, your hypothesized 
> examples ought to focus on the things that Bob and Alice do for
> *expressive* purposes

What on earth do _purposes_ have to do with anything?  If I write a
cookbook, I don't do it to express myself, but to explain how to cook
various dishes (and perhaps to make money).  Nonetheless, my cookbook is
copyrightable because there is more than one possible form for the content.
Likewise, both Alice's code and Bob's code are expressive, for there is more
than one way to write each of them.

> rather than the things they do merely to allow their software to 
> function together through some technical (or bizarre) form of linking.

Why bring up linking?  My hypos have to do with source-code modification,
not with linking.

> I'll apply copyright law only when Bob or Alice make their software 
> prettier.

Bah.

-- 
Don't be so humble.  You're not that great.             John Cowan
        --Golda Meir                                    cowan at ccil.org