Questions on GPL for billwg 15418

I redundantly reiterate and repeat: "The decision then goes on to examine the *scope* of protection afforded by copyright to programs..."

Sort of. "We emphasize that, like all copyright infringement cases, those that involve computer programs are highly fact specific. The amount of protection due structural elements, in any given case, will vary according to the protectable expression found to exist within the program at issue."

"Clearly, the highest level of abstraction - the purpose of the program - is not protectable and would be filtered out. At the lowest levels - the source and object code - total or even substantial copying is likely to be an infringement. It is at the mid-levels where the filtering is generally performed."

(Note that this directly contradicts your claim that copying of source code in general is legal...)

Simple syllogism:

If I own the copyright to a particular work, and a translation is made of it to another language, then I own the copyright to that translation. (This is totally supported by copyright law.)

Now, I own the copyright on the translation, right? So, if *that* work is translated, then *by the very same principle as above*, then I own the copyright in that second translation.

(Any chance you might answer this one, Bill?)

I distinctly remember reading about a case of a photographer sued by a city council for this, but I can't find a cite on Google.

All right, fine. This is pointless. All you ever say is, effectively, "is not". As I told DFS, I can talk to my two-year-old if I want someone to say that to me over and over.

-- Sincerely,

Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317

"Look, you can't 'show' someone why the fish slapping dance is funny. A person either appreciates it, or not all, on a totally fundamental level and you can't change someone in that kind of way." - Nermal