Re: Big blow to proprietary linking nonsense.

[Rex Ballard]

On May 16, 2:52 pm, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> RJack <u...@example.net> writes:
> > 7 wrote:
> >> RJack the stupid 1 wrote:

> You are confused.  Modification even in uncreative ways is not a right
> granted by copyright.

Actually, by default, ANY modification is a "derivative work" and all
rights to derivative works including the right to create and
distribute them - are controlled by the copyright owner.  The
copyright owner may grant some permission to release derivative works
- such as the BSD license, but these permissions must be granted
explicitly.

The whole point of the Revised Copyright Act of 1976 and the Digital
Millenium Copyright Act of 1994 was to limit the ability of Judges to
define "fair use" at their discresssion.

It's worth noting that it was BECAUSE of the Revised Copyright Act of
1976 that Microsoft was able to exist and thrive the way it did.

If the basis for this summary judgement were allowed to stand as legal
precedent, based on the current lack of evidence that the software was
not "work for hire" - the lack of a negotiated contract does not make
it work for hire, because the defendant acknowledges that they were
still in progress of negotiating the contract, and that contract
negotiation broke down when the terms of the interim agreement were
changed.