Re: SFLC: "a penumbra"

[rjack]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> [http://www.softwarefreedom.org/publications/msvatt.pdf]
>
> Toward the end, arch legal GNU beagle Eben eloquently states:
>
> "Thus, this Court's precedent repeatedly sets out that software, which 
> is nothing more than a set of instructions -- an algorithm -- to be 
> performed by a computer in order to solve some mathematical problem, 
> is ..."
>
> According to the US Copyright Office, Copyright protection is not 
> available for ideas, program logic, algorithms, systems, methods, 
> concepts, ...
>
> So... copyright protection is not available for software as defined by 
> arch legal GNU beagle Eben.
>
> GPL? Who is GPL?
>
> regards,
> alexander.
>
> --
> "Join the boycott of Chinese products"
>
>                   -- www.stallman.org

Word has it that Eben Moglen is fed up with the public's general 
ignorance concerning copyright law and is about to incorporate the 
following Supreme Court interpretation of copyright law as the Preamble 
to his new patent-busting GPL3 copyright license:

“In addition to spurring the creation and publication of new expression, 
copyright law contains built-in First Amendment accommodations. See id., 
at 560. First, it distinguishes between ideas and expression and makes 
only the latter eligible for copyright protection. Specifically, 17 U. 
S. C. §102(b) provides: “In no case does copyright protection for an 
original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, 
system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, 
regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, 
or embodied in such work.” As we said in Harper & Row, this 
“idea/expression dichotomy strike[s] a definitional balance between the 
First Amendment and the Copyright Act by permitting free communication 
of facts while still protecting an author’s expression.” 471 U. S., at 
556 (internal quotation marks omitted). DUE TO THIS DISTINCTION, EVERY 
IDEA, THEORY, AND FACT IN A COPYRIGHTED WORK BECOMES INSTANTLY AVAILABLE 
FOR PUBLIC EXPLOITATION AT THE MOMENT OF PUBLICATION. See Feist, 499 U. 
S., at 349–350.

Second, the “fair use” defense allows the public to use NOT ONLY FACTS 
AND IDEAS contained in a copyrighted work, but also expression itself in 
certain circumstances. Codified at 17 U. S. C. §107, the defense 
provides: .  . .”, Eldred V. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003).



Looks like like the Microsoft-Novell deal is a cooked goose. . . (: