[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: FSF : lackeys of their corporate masters
Date: Sat, 08 May 2004 00:59:58 +0200

Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> That's one of the reasons.  See the essays on LGPL versus GPL,
> where the FSF says that libraries such as readline are intentionally GPL
> because that induces other people to make *their* work GPL so that
> they can take advantage of GPL.

FSF's theory of derivative works is total crap. Expansive FSF's 
claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse and the 
doctrine of first sale.

> The GPL has worked fine for copyrights.  I've often wondered if it would
> be useful to start a GPL-like patent pool instead of just knocking down
> other people's patents.

(The Case against Copyright Protection of Non-literal 
 Elements of Computer Software)


Altai has been viewed as a landmark decision as it incorporates 
many traditional principles of copyright law into a single 
analytical framework seemingly suitable for computer software. 
However, when honestly applied, the abstraction-filtration-
comparison test eliminates protection for computer programs by 
entirely filtering out not only the individual elements of 
computer programs such as software objects but also the 
compilation of selection and arrangement expression that is the 
program's structure, since both are designed with efficiency in 


It is more appropriate to consider the software objects of a 
computer program as analogous to the gears, pulleys, and levers 
of a mechanical invention, as by its very nature, the design of 
computer software is intended to optimize functionality by 
making a program run faster, use less memory, or be easier for 
the programmer to modify. When viewed as a collection of 
software objects combined in such a way as to optimally perform 
various tasks, the design of computer software closely 
resembles the design of functional devices protected by patent 
law rather than the non-functional, non-literal elements of 
creative authorial works protected under copyright law.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]