On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Noah Slater <nsla...@tumbolia.org> wrote: > Saying that configuration files, in all cases, are not copywritable because > that are, on the whole, not as complex as code is like saying that blog > posts, in all cases, are not copywritable because they are, on the whole, > not as complex as books. > > The law is much more nuanced than that. There is no way we can say, up > front, whether a configuration file is protected by copywrite or not. The > unwillingness to commit to anything on legal-discuss is an indication of > this. (It was made explicit that with a vague question, there will only be > vague answers.) > > It might be better to actually document what we have, and then present that > to legal discuss and take it from there. > > Let's get concrete. > > We should put together a list of each config file path, along with > information such as: > > * Size of file > * Complexity (key/value, code snippets, what?) > * Copyright notice or license header? > * License of project it (may) have been taken from > * Origin (Citrix, upstream project, unknown?) > > Once we have a complete picture, I think we can talk about how to proceed. > > (And hopefully propose a guideline for future config files.) > > I certainly do not think we are in a position to write of an entire > category of data as being uncopywritable. > > I am happy to run this to pursue this with legal too, but I think we need a > better view of what we're dealing with. > > Thoughts? >
Alright, I'll start working on compiling this. --David
