Thanks! On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 7:41 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> 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 > -- NS
