Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod -7/37)
by Bernd Schoeller (18.104.22.168) on Thu Sep 13 13:42:52 2007 (GMT)
> > Ok, but what is the point in the 'ath5k_hw.c' case? Why is this a violation?
> Here goes:
> > Even for small, insignificant changes, it must be possible for the creator of these changes to claim copyright.
> That is absolutely false. Please do the minimum of research. Small, insignificant changes do not get you copyright. Only an original work gets you copyright -- the laws are very clear.
I assume that you are talking about "Threshold of originality". As far as German courts go, this can be very low. http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/ wireless-dev.git;a=commitdiff;h=d8a285c8f83f728be2d056e6d4b0909972789d51 do probably already qualify. In Germany, the question of the amount of change is not relevant, but if it could be reproduced by a machine or is a derivation of a template. The "Sweat of the Brow" is not applied in Germany.
Even if a court would decide differently, there is no problem of claiming copyright on a piece of software that one modified. If the threshold of originality is contested, courts can decide later.
> > BTW, Theo also seems not to be really firm with international copyright law.
> I have a way firmer grasp of international copyright law than you because I spent many hours poring over the Berne Convention, the relevant parts of TRIPS, and also the copyright laws of 3 countries.
> You appear to not even have used wikipedia to read summaries of the laws. wikipedia does have links to these sources if you ever decide to take the time to actually learn (before you speak).
I am sorry to have offended you. I excuse myself for that statement.
> > For example, he completely forgets the fact that copyright does not need to be claimed in Germany. If you did something, you have the copyright to it.
> No, if you "do something" you do not get copyright on it. It must be original. If it includes parts of other author's work, then the original parts must be greater. Otherwise there is no copyright on the material, and the changed parts belong TO THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR. There are various legal tests to determine if you can copyright it, and hence, gain the right to set your own terms.
> > No claiming necessary.
> You do not need to assert copyright. But an uncopyrightable derivation does not belong to the new person who is tweaking it. It falls under the existing author's copyright and his license. The new person making small changes does not qualify for copyright.
Could you please clearify "belong"? Copyright ("Urheberrecht") in Germany cannot be transfered at all. The final product is a joint work by multiple authors. The new author only owns his changes, not the entire work. I was always just talking about the changes, never about the whole product.
> > Thus, if somebody changes somethings to a BSD licensed file, but does not put himself into the BSD clause, he actually gives no permissions about his changes to anyone. Thus, nobody is allowed to do anything with the resulting product without explicit concent from the author.
> Wow, you really do have a very inventive mind. All it needs is a good dose of actual research time.
Thanks for repeating once more that I did not do my research.
[ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]
Add Story |
Copyright © 2004-2008
All rights reserved.
Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors,
submission implies license to publish on this web site.
Contents of the archive prior to April 2nd 2004 as well as images
and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original
Jim's kind permission.
Some icons from slashdot.org
used with permission from Kathleen.
This journal runs as CGI with
on OpenBSD, the
source code is
Search engine is ht://Dig.
undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]