The Lawyers are Here!
 | ||
 | Email weblog link | |
 | Blog this |
Tim O'Reilly
Mar. 16, 2004 05:01 PM
Permalink
I asked Matt Asay, the organizer of the conference, about this, and he told me that about 200 of the conference attendees are lawyers. And from my sense of the audience, many of them are new to the topic.
My conclusion: the SCO case has put the GPL on the radar of lawyers. In many ways, this is good news, since it means they are paying attention. And once they start paying attention, the facts of the matter will speak for themselves.
Tim O'Reilly is the founder and CEO of O'Reilly Media, Inc., thought by many to be the best computer book publisher in the world. In addition to Foo Camps ("Friends of O'Reilly" Camps, which gave rise to the "un-conference" movement), O'Reilly Media also hosts conferences on technology topics, including the Web 2.0 Summit, the Web 2.0 Expo, the O'Reilly Open Source Convention, the Gov 2.0 Summit, and the Gov 2.0 Expo. Tim's blog, the O'Reilly Radar, "watches the alpha geeks" to determine emerging technology trends, and serves as a platform for advocacy about issues of importance to the technical community. Tim's long-term vision for his company is to change the world by spreading the knowledge of innovators. In addition to O'Reilly Media, Tim is a founder of Safari Books Online, a pioneering subscription service for accessing books online, and O'Reilly AlphaTech Ventures, an early-stage venture firm.
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2.
-
Good in the long run, but in the short term?
2004-03-17 15:48:43 John W. Adams |
[View]
-
Defects in the SCO Copyright stance
2004-03-16 20:57:00 lion_kuntz [View]
http://www.ecosyn.us/SCO_v_IBM_copyright_issues.html
SCO v IBM: SELECTED WEBPAGES CITATIONS OF COPYRIGHT LAW HISTORY RELEVENT TO UNIX SYSTEM V COPYRIGHT CLAIMS STATUS
* NO copyrights for computer programs, source code or machine readable binary were copyrightable in the US before 1980.
* Before 1976, mandatory notices were required on all copyrighted materials in standardized mandatory forms -- failure to adhere to the law regarding mandatory notices on published works forfeited what copyright protection was available.
* Before 1976 copyright was not automatically conferred upon creating a fixed tangible form -- copyright was limited to those works which complied with the provisions of the prior law "The Copyright Act of 1909". Unix was developed and distributed for seven years under this law.
* Distributing works, making one or more copies for sale, lease or loan, constituted publication during the first seven years of Unix development.
* Since 1976, mandatory requirements for copyrighted works have required deposit of copies with the Library of Congress within 3 months of first publication. Unless Unix source code is in the Library of Congress it is not copyrighted. Unless Unix System V is in the Library of Congress, it is in violation of the 1976 revisions. Before 1976 "promptly" depositing copies was mandatory, defined in caselaw as within one year of first publication.
* Unix System V is a collection of modules, mostly public domain through copyright forfeiture between 1969 and 1976.
* It is defined as fraud under the 1909 Copyright Act [§ 105] "shall insert or impress any notice of copyright required by this title, or words of the same purport, in or upon any uncopyrighted article" to post-fix copyright notices upon works not qualifying for copyright.
* None of the 1976, 1980, or 1989 adjustments to Copyright laws and the Berne Treaty permitted retroactive copyrights to previously forfeiting or public domain works.
* Unix System V is basically public domain in the catagory of a compilation or anthology. Only new material added after 1976, or after 1980 (when computer programs first became copyrightable) could possibly qualify for copyright status, and only those collections which complied with mandatory deposit with the Library of Congress. Everything else is not in compliance with copyright laws and treaties.
| Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2. |
Return to weblogs.oreilly.com.
Weblog authors are solely responsible for the content and accuracy of their weblogs, including opinions they express, and O'Reilly Media, Inc., disclaims any and all liabililty for that content, its accuracy, and opinions it may contain.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.
In the long run, this is a very welcome development. In the near future, though, it could be a real mess.