incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Giffuni <...@apache.org>
Subject ICC generated profiles are copylefted (was Re: A systematic approach to IP review?)
Date Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:35:48 GMT
Hi;

When I saw this thread about machine-generate files, I never
imagined we would be taking about code in OpenOffice.org but
I found that this file:
icc/source/create_sRGB_profile/create_sRGB_profile.cpp

indeed generates viral licensed code!

I am proposing an obvious patch but I wanted the issue
documented so I created bug 118512.

enjoy ;)

Pedro.

--- On Thu, 9/29/11, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:53 AM,
> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> > Let me recall the bidding a little here.  What I said
> was
> >
> > " It is unlikely that machine-generated files of any
> kind are copyrightable subject matter."
> >
> > You point out that computer-generated files might
> incorporate copyrightable subject matter.  I hadn't
> considered a hybrid case where copyrightable subject matter
> would subsist in such a work, and I have no idea how and to
> what extend the output qualifies as a work of authorship,
> but it is certainly a case to be reckoned with.
> >
> > Then there is the issue of macro expansion, template
> parameter substitution, etc., and the cases becomes blurrier
> and blurrier.  For example, if I wrote a program and then
> put it through the C Language pre-processor, in how much of
> the expanded result does the copyright declared on the
> original subsist?  (I am willing to concede, for purposes
> of argument, that the second is a derivative work of the
> former, even though the derivation occurred dynamically.)
> >
> > I fancy this example because it is commonplace that
> the pre-processor incorporated files that have their own
> copyright and license notices too.  Also, the original
> might include macro calls, with
> > parameters using macros defined in one or more of
> those incorporated files.
> >
> 
> Under US law:  "Copyright protection subsists, in
> accordance with this
> title, in original works of authorship fixed in any
> tangible medium of
> expression, now known or later developed, from which they
> can be
> perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either
> directly or
> with the aid of a machine or device"
> 
> IANAL, but I believe Dennis is correct that a machine
> cannot be an
> author, in terms of copyright.  But the author of that
> program might.
> It comes down to who exactly put the work into a "fixed in
> any
> tangible medium of expression".
> 
> When I used a n ordinary code editor, the machine acts as a
> tool that
> I use to create an original work. It is a tool, like a
> paintbrush.  In
> other cases, a tool can be used to transform a work.
> 
> If there is an original work in fixed form that I
> transform, then I
> may have copyright interest in the transformed work. That
> is how
> copyright law protects software binaries as well as source
> code.
> 
> As for the GNU Bison example, if I created the BNF, then I
> have
> copyright interest in the generated code.  That does
> not mean that I
> have exclusive ownership of all the generated code. 
> It might be a
> mashup of original template code from the Bison authors,
> along with
> code that is a transformation of my original grammar
> definition.  It
> isn't an either/or situation.  A work can have mixed
> authorship.
> 
> -Rob
> 
> 
> > I concede that copyrightable matter can survive into a
> machine-generated file.  And I maintain that there can be
> other conditions on the use of such a file other than by
> virtue of it containing portions in which copyright
> subsists.  For example, I don't think the Copyright office
> is going to accept registration of compiled binaries any
> time soon, even though there may be conditions on the
> license of the source code that carries over onto those
> binaries.
> >
> > And, yes, it is murky all the way down.
> >
> >  - Dennis
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 22:32
> > To: 'ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org'
> > Subject: RE: A systematic approach to IP review?
> >
> > Not to put too fine a point on this, but it sounds
> like you are talking about boilerplate (and authored)
> template code that Bison incorporates in its output.  It is
> also tricky because the Bison output is computer source
> code.  That is an interesting case.
> >
> > In the US, original work of authorship is pretty
> specific in the case of literary works, which is where
> software copyright falls the last time I checked (too long
> ago, though).  I suspect that a license (in the contractual
> sense) can deal with more than copyright.  And, if Bison
> spits out copyright notices, they still only apply to that
> part of the output, if any, that qualifies as copyrightable
> subject matter.
> >
> > Has the Bison claim ever been tested in court?  Has
> anyone been pursued or challenged for infringement? I'm just
> curious.
> >
> >  - Dennis
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Norbert Thiebaud [mailto:nthiebaud@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 22:11
> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> > Subject: Re: A systematic approach to IP review?
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> > <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
> wrote:
> >> I'll stand by my original statement.
> >>
> >> I'm not going to get into the Pixar case since it
> doesn't apply here.
> >
> > I did not say it applied to the Visual studio
> generated cruft... I
> > merely commented on the blanket assertion that
> 'computer generated =>
> > no copyright'
> >>
> >> 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.
> > Actually it is. The only claim they could legally have
> _is_ on the
> > generated bit that are substantial piece of code
> copied from template
> > they provide, namely in the case of a bison generated
> parser the whole
> > parser skeleton needed to exploit the generated
> state-graph. the whole
> > paragraph is about the copyright disposition of these
> bits. and in the
> > case of bison they explicitly grant you a license to
> use these bits in
> > the 'normal' use case... my point being that the
> existence of that
> > paragraph also disprove the assertion that 'computer
>  generated => no
> > copyright'
> >
> > You could write a program that print itself... the
> mere fact that it
> > print itself does not mean you lose the copyright on
> your program...
> >
> > That being said, I do think you are on the clear with
> the Visual
> > Studio generated cruft... but not merely because there
> is 'computer
> > generation' involved.
> >
> >
> > Norbert
> >
> >
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message