From 6f718b34bb47ae28610935a44d9d607766816b6e 2014-03-21 16:53:55 From: Bradley M. Kuhn Date: 2014-03-21 16:53:55 Subject: [PATCH] Correct ' signs in these places. --- diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex index c81b53ebb954c6b40d98edfa10123b7ffe9d6100..5097b7887cc937bbeb2174f539682bd6d761544d 100644 --- a/gpl-lgpl.tex +++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex @@ -1374,12 +1374,12 @@ of derivative work for software in comparison to other circuits. Specifically, the First Circuit holds that ``method of operation,'' as used in \S~102(b) of the Copyright Act, refers to the means by which users operate -computers. Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland Int’l., Inc., 49 F.3d 807 +computers. Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland Int'l., Inc., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995). In Lotus, the court held that a menu command hierarchy for a computer program was uncopyrightable because it did not -merely explain and present the program’s functional capabilities to the +merely explain and present the program's functional capabilities to the user, but also served as a method by which the program was operated and -controlled. As a result, under the First Circuit’s test, literal copying +controlled. As a result, under the First Circuit's test, literal copying of a menu command hierarchy, or any other ``method of operation,'' cannot form the basis for a determination that one work is a derivative of another. As a result, courts in the First Circuit that apply the AFC test