[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GPL traitor !

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: GPL traitor !
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 16:29:12 +0200

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>   bolting a new code generator onto an existing compiler, this isn't a
>   work "derived from the original", and you do not need permission from
>   the compiler's copyright holder.

"we recognize that technology often advances by improvement rather than
replacement. See Christian H. Nadan, Note, A Proposal to Recognize
Component Works: How a Teddy Bears on the Competing Ends of Copyright
Law, 78 Cal.L.Rev. 1633, 1635 (1990). Some time ago, for example,
computer companies began marketing spell-checkers that operate within
existing word processors by signalling the writer when a word is
misspelled. These applications, as well as countless others, could not
be produced and marketed if courts were to conclude that the word
processor and spell-checker combination is a derivative work based on
the word processor alone. The Game Genie is useless by itself, ... nor
does it supplant demand for Nintendo game cartridges. Such innovations
rarely will constitute infringing derivative works under the Copyright
Act. See generally Nadan, supra, at 1667-72."


(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

reply via email to

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