incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
Subject RE: A systematic approach to IP review?
Date Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:55:11 GMT
I'll stand by my original statement.

I'm not going to get into the Pixar case since it doesn't apply here.

The Bison manual may have license conditions on what can be done with the generated artifact,
but I suggest that is not about copyrightable subject matter in the artifact.  A similar condition
would be one in, let's say for a hypothetical case, Visual C++ 2008 Express Edition requiring
that generated code be run on Windows.  It's not about copyright.  

And I agree, one must understand license conditions that apply to the tool used to make the
generated artifacts.  I did neglect to consider that.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Norbert Thiebaud [mailto:nthiebaud@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 16:41
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Subject: Re: A systematic approach to IP review?

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> It is unlikely that machine-generated files of any kind are copyrightable subject matter.

I'd imagine that Pixar, for instance, would have a problem with that
blanket statement...

The very existence of this paragraph in the Bison manual :
http://www.gnu.org/s/bison/manual/bison.html#Conditions
also raise doubt as the the validity of the premise.

Norbert


Mime
View raw message