openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Norbert Thiebaud <>
Subject Re: A systematic approach to IP review?
Date Thu, 29 Sep 2011 05:10:57 GMT
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<> 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

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.


View raw message