| |||||||||||||
Google should strip out unreferenced symbols... but it probably doesn't matterGoogle should strip out unreferenced symbols... but it probably doesn't matterPosted Mar 22, 2011 12:28 UTC (Tue) by ekj (guest, #1524)In reply to: Google should strip out unreferenced symbols... but it probably doesn't matter by wahern Parent article: Has Bionic stepped over the GPL line?
In this particular example, both would probably be judged to be trivial, and to lack sufficient content to be worthy of copyright. Exactly what is worthy, varies by jurisdiction, but I'm not aware of any where "struct foo { int x, y; };" would suffice.
Notice, as a parallell, how Wikipedia commons claim, after careful legal review, that a flat-on photo of a 2-dimensional work of art, does not enjoy copyright. (the work of art may or may not, but the PHOTO as such, does not), because there's not sufficient creativity and/or artistic skill involved in the creation.
Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. So if a certain struct, or a certain photo, does not contribute beyond the idea itself, then it's not protected by copyright.
Yes the borders are fuzzy.
(Log in to post comments)
Google should strip out unreferenced symbols... but it probably doesn't matter Posted Mar 22, 2011 14:09 UTC (Tue) by wahern (subscriber, #37304) [Link]
I wasn't trying to be literal. There's little doubt that "struct foo" is bereft of original, creative expression. It was merely an exercise which in substance is no different when you apply the analysis to the larger tree.
Google should strip out unreferenced symbols... but it probably doesn't matter Posted Mar 23, 2011 8:18 UTC (Wed) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
Like always with non-trivial question the answer is "it depends".
Some people in CompSci tends to think in overly strict principal lines, wanting the grey to go away. Perhaps this has something to do with how a computer works, in binary. But it's not how law works.
If one sentence contains insufficient creativity and/or artistic skill to be worthy of copyright, it does -not- follow that 50 similarily well-written sentences as a whole *also* does not deserve copyright.
In practice, merely doing more of the same, can give copyright. The creativity and/or artistic skill which is there adds up, and at some point crosses the threshold. This message as a whole, for example, may well be sufficient - whereas any individual sentence in it, would likely not be. (and I'm sure many of the sentences have been used in a very similar form before by others)
What I'm saying is, you *cannot* generalise from trivial examples to the whole tree. It's certainly possible that each of the examples, in isolation, is unprotected, while the sum total is protected.
Google should strip out unreferenced symbols... but it probably doesn't matter Posted Mar 23, 2011 19:26 UTC (Wed) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
> Some people in CompSci tends to think in overly strict principal lines, wanting the grey to go away. Perhaps this has something to do with how a computer works, in binary. But it's not how law works.
Or perhaps it's how reasonable people think? Many laws are designed to be wishy washy so that the people who speak in vague illogical terms and who spend money on lawyers can take advantage of those reasonable people who don't. Copyright is just one of the many examples of this. Patents are an obvious other.
The fact that this discussion is currently over 100 comments of bickering over the understanding of copyright, likely by professionals who actually operate in the copyright field daily, should tell you that the concept of copyright is beyond grey, and very vague. This is not a subject matter that any law could ever be fair about. It is not a subject matter that you could expect juries to reasonably agree upon in a consistent matter. It is simply a bad use (not just a bad implementation) of law.
|
|||||||||||||