[copyleft-next] Update 2012-08-25

Theodore Ts'o tytso at mit.edu
Sun Aug 26 18:21:32 UTC 2012


On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 10:38:08AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> 
> Now that's an interesting philosophical point. I'll agree that the
> current draft of copyleft-next bears little resemblance to the GPL,
> but given that it started with the GPL text, is it not eternally a
> derivative work? Is there some threshold where a derivative work stops
> being such? This seems to have legal implications as well.

Nope.  You can't copyright ideas, only the expression of an idea.  You
can patent ideas and designs (ignoring issues of whether you should be
able to patent software algorithms or rounded corners) but that's a
different kettle of fish.

One lawyer has said that he uses as a rule of thumb the "one cubicle
wall rule".  That is, if you have a computer in one cubicle, and read
the source code there, internalize the idea and concepts, and then
wander over to the next cubicle, and code up the same algorithm,
you're probably safe from a copyright claim.  (Of courses, there are
all sorts of details, such as whether or not the person involved had
photographic memory, and the reasons why lawyers get paid $$$$ is to
apply facts to legal principles.)

One of the things which is really scary to me is how few developers
don't seem to understand basic copyright principles.  I've even heard
some people who should have known better assert that the GPL could and
should infect across an RPC call, or across a shell script
invocation....  Usually it's while they defend the idea that the law
guarantees a distinction between LGPL and GPL with respect to shared
library linkage, which is at best a very grey, unsettled area where
there have been no court rules on point so far as I know.

						- Ted


More information about the copyleft-next mailing list