Copyleft/guide Changeset - e8a8778ae5ec

...

@@ -1341,10 +1341,10 @@ identical in order to be held a derivative work of an original, while

The First Circuit has taken the position that the AFC test is inapplicable

when the works in question relate to unprotectable elements set forth in

\S 102(b).  Their approach results in a much narrower definition

\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

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

(1st Cir. 1995).  In Lotus, the court held that a menu command

...

@@ -1355,7 +1355,7 @@ controlled. As a result, under the First Circuits 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

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.,

683 F. Supp.2d 147, 154 (D. Mass. 2010).

...

@@ -1413,7 +1413,7 @@ both a ``method of operation'' (using an approach not dissimilar to the

First Circuit's analysis in Lotus) and a ``functional requirement for

compatability'' (using Sega v. Accolade, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) and

Sony Computer Ent. v. Connectix, 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) as analogies),

and thus unprotectable subject matter under \S 102(b).

and thus unprotectable subject matter under \S~102(b).

Perhaps not surprisingly, there have been few other cases involving a highly

detailed software derivative work analysis. Most often, cases involve

...

@@ -1926,7 +1926,7 @@ also  not trumped by other copyright agreements or components of other

entirely separate legal systems.  In short, while GPLv2~\S\S0--3 are the parts

of the license that defend the freedoms of users and programmers,

GPLv2~\S\S4--7 are the parts of the license that keep the playing field clear

so that \S\S 0--3 can do their jobs.

so that \S\S~0--3 can do their jobs.

\section{GPLv2~\S4: Termination on Violation}

\label{GPLv2s4}

...

@@ -3030,7 +3030,7 @@ covered by terms other than those of the GPL. Such terms may include certain

kinds of patent retaliation provisions that are broader than those of section

2.

\section{GPLv3~\S12: Familiar as GPLv2 \S 7}

\section{GPLv3~\S12: Familiar as GPLv2 \S~7}

% FIXME:  probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.

...

@@ -3505,7 +3505,7 @@ that a user who wishes to modify or update the library can do so.

LGPLv2.1~\S6 lists five choices with regard to supplying library source

and granting the freedom to modify that library source to users. We

will first consider the option given by \S 6(b), which describes the

will first consider the option given by \S~6(b), which describes the

most common way currently used for LGPLv2.1 compliance on a ``work that

uses the library.''