[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: CSRG archives

From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: CSRG archives
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:10:26 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0

On 3/23/2010 1:15 PM, RJack wrote:
An utterly false staement. The elements of the AFC test are applicable
to any computer program.

What's that they say? Ignorance of the law is no excuse?

Mitel Inc. v. Iqtel Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
September 22, 1997
124 F.3d 1366, 44 USPQ2d 1172
    Notwithstanding our endorsement of abstraction-filtration-comparison
    analysis, we emphasize that the approach is valuable only insofar as
    it aids the court in distinguishing protectable elements of a work
    from those that are unprotectable. Not every case requires an extensive
    abstraction-filtration-comparison analysis. Rather, “the appropriate
    test to be applied and the order in which its various components are to
    be applied . . . may vary depending upon the claims involved, the
    procedural posture of the suit, and the nature of the [works] at issue.”
    Gates Rubber Co.,  9 F.3d at 834 n.12. <124 F.3d 1373>

    Where, as here, the alleged infringement constitutes the admitted literal
    copying of a discrete, easily-conceptualized portion of a work, we need
    not perform complete abstraction-filtration-comparison analysis.

BusyBox is not
a large complex program owned by someone. It is a virtually untraceable
amalgam of patches to source code modules by a hundred or more authors
that stretches over a span of more than ten years and millions of source
code bytes under different licenses.

It's origins are irrelevant, as long as some antecedent version
permitted the creation of derivative works and of combined works
without restricting the license under which such derivative and
combined works could be distributed.

Let me repeat this fact. Let me repeat this fact. Let me repeat this
fact. Let me repeat this fact:

Erik Andersen is not the "owner" of any version of BusyBox as you imply.

Erik Andersen is the owner of a derivative and combined work
starting with the version of BusyBox which contains his changes.
That is the nature of copyright law with respect to the creation
of derivative and combined works. You are free to dislike that
law, but you are not free to ignore it.

17 USC 103
    The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends
    ... to the material contributed by the author of such work
    The copyright in such work is independent of ... any copyright
    protection in the preexisting material.

reply via email to

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