[T]he Supreme Court ruled that a mere collection of facts can't be
copyrighted.
Would the Linux people, then, be able to assert
that their C code is merely programmable facts which generates certain
(MD5|MD4|SHA1|etc) hashes? Chew on that one, SCO.
(1) PROTECTION NOT EXTENDED- Subject to paragraph (2), protection under section 3 shall not extend to computer programs, including any computer program used in the manufacture, production, operation, or maintenance of a database, or to any element of a computer program necessary to its operation.
Okay now here's a riddle - Let's say that Microsoft comes out with Longhorn and WinFS [com.com]. My files are now in a database. Can they take even the smallest form of data out (ie a subset as per the definitions) without violating this law?
Neat
they can do whatever they want. it's your haradware, but not your OS. and it's also not your word processor (MS Word). so in reality it's not your data. thus, and the word processor does, and the OS does, it doesn't really belong to you. the last XP service pack said that microsoft can pretty much do as they please with your computer. WMP keeps a database of every media you listen/watch. and with the new DRM, they are limiting what you can with your comptuer even further. so since it's their databas
I honestly cannot see them implementing a DRM that you hint at. If Microsoft wanted to own your computer, they could, but why would they want to? The publicity alone would put Linux OS not only into the mainstream as the best choice, but you'd probably see a lot of your non-geek friends asking for it. Would Microsoft honestly want this?
The publicity alone would put Linux OS not only into the mainstream as the best choice, but you'd probably see a lot of your non-geek friends asking for it.
given everything that microsoft has already done, people would have longed left them. no, they are the 800 pound gorilla. besides, all the major hardwre manufacturers are scared shitless of them. in fact, they need to do this, or something like it. they realize the real battle is in the server room, the data center. and they aren't winning that b
Microsoft's lawyers may wish it otherwise, but in reality, what Microsoft owns is the copyright on Windows, Word, etc. You own your copy of the software, but you don't have the rights to create and distribute copies of it. Their crazy EULAs may make all kinds of claims, but in the end, the documents you create are YOUR data, and any attempt Microsoft may make to enforce otherwise will undoubtedly lead to failure. After all, an unreasonable contract agreed to under coercion is clearly invalid.
What about the stipulations on level editors included with many games *cough*Blizzard*cough* that forbids the commercialization of your own original levels?
Those are your own levels...but their characters and terrain images and textures, after all.
In other words, perfectly legit, because any map you make with their editor, unless you replace EVERY image, sound, texture, mesh, etc. is just a compilation (by you, admittedly) of their artwork and effort.
Hrm. I don't know, I think the map file is a bit big for just data--I'd think they'd pre-render some stuff in the map file if for no other reason than to justify their EULA, whether or not it causes a performance/disk space hit.
But isn't your novel that you wrote using MS Word merely a "map of pointers" to microsoft proprietary information such as character data, formatters, etc.? Therefore, Microsoft has a reasonable expectation that it owns whatever you create using its software.
I can output my word document in a useful format using programs other than word, free fonts, etc. To my knowledge, the only program that can do anything useful with a Warcraft III map file is Warcraft III.
And if I were going to write anything with any software, you can bet I'd check the damn EULA to see if they were even thinking about claiming my words as their own. Because that matters.
Warcraft III maps, I don't give a shit about--they are only useful in one specific, very proprietary context. If tha
(1) PROTECTION NOT EXTENDED- Subject to paragraph (2), protection under section 3 shall not extend to computer programs, including any computer program used in the manufacture, production, operation, or maintenance of a database, or to any element of a computer program necessary to its operation.
When does it stop being a bunch of facts and start being a computer program?
Would using lame code like echo fact 1 echo fact 2 etc. to store your facts as an executable program be enough to make the claim that it
And the point of that would be what? To prevent you from collecting treble damages?
It's the people creating the data who want the extra protection, they aren't going to go out of their way to allow other people to take their data...hell, if they wanted to do that they could still use a database and just not file suit.
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
Who owns the facts? (Score:4, Interesting)
[T]he Supreme Court ruled that a mere collection of facts can't be copyrighted.
Would the Linux people, then, be able to assert that their C code is merely programmable facts which generates certain (MD5|MD4|SHA1|etc) hashes? Chew on that one, SCO.
Re:Who owns the facts? (Score:5, Informative)
(1) PROTECTION NOT EXTENDED- Subject to paragraph (2), protection under section 3 shall not extend to computer programs, including any computer program used in the manufacture, production, operation, or maintenance of a database, or to any element of a computer program necessary to its operation.
Re:Who owns the facts? (Score:5, Interesting)
read the EULA (Score:2)
Re:read the EULA (Score:0)
Re:read the EULA (Score:2)
given everything that microsoft has already done, people would have longed left them. no, they are the 800 pound gorilla. besides, all the major hardwre manufacturers are scared shitless of them. in fact, they need to do this, or something like it. they realize the real battle is in the server room, the data center. and they aren't winning that b
Re:read the EULA (Score:0)
Crazy EULA claims (Score:2)
Re:Crazy EULA claims (Score:1)
In other words, perfectly legit, because any map you make with their editor, unless you replace EVERY image, sound, texture, mesh, etc. is just a compilation (by you, admittedly) of their artwork and effort.
Re:Crazy EULA claims (Score:1)
Re:Crazy EULA claims (Score:1)
Re:Crazy EULA claims (Score:0)
Re:Crazy EULA claims (Score:1)
And if I were going to write anything with any software, you can bet I'd check the damn EULA to see if they were even thinking about claiming my words as their own. Because that matters.
Warcraft III maps, I don't give a shit about--they are only useful in one specific, very proprietary context. If tha
Re:Who owns the facts? (Score:2)
When does it stop being a bunch of facts and start being a computer program?
Would using lame code like
echo fact 1
echo fact 2
etc. to store your facts as an executable program be enough to make the claim that it
Re:Who owns the facts? (Score:1)
It's the people creating the data who want the extra protection, they aren't going to go out of their way to allow other people to take their data...hell, if they wanted to do that they could still use a database and just not file suit.