Copyleft/guide Changeset - 6f718b34bb47

Changeset - 6f718b34bb47

Parent rev.

Child rev.

[Not reviewed]

0 1 0

Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn) - 10 years ago 2014-03-21 16:53:55
bkuhn@ebb.org

Correct ' signs in these places.

1 file changed with 3 insertions and 3 deletions:

gpl-lgpl.tex

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)

gpl-lgpl.tex

➞

Show inline comments

@@ ... @@
 when the works in question relate to unprotectable elements set forth in
 \S~102(b).  Their approach results in a much narrower definition
 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 Intl., 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 programs 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 Circuits 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
 do so only after applying a broad interpretation of \S~102(b) to filter out
 unprotected elements. E.g., Real View, LLC v. 20-20 Technologies, Inc.,
 F. Supp.2d 147, 154 (D. Mass. 2010).

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)