On 2000-06-02 at 12:07 -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 12:01:23PM -0400, Mike Bilow wrote: > > Yes, but it is not clear to me that this is a violation of the OPL. The > > problem is that the OPL is overwhelmingly concerned with, and written > > subject to the assumption that, it is protecting something equivalent to a > > book. This means that the main thrust of the protected material is the > > words and the _relevant_ illustrations. > > The exact significance of this interpretation depends on the > technology used to display the text. > > For example, hit "view source" under netscape, and you'll > see some rather interesting words.
I recognize your point, but there is enormous uncertainty whether HTML source is subject to copyright protection at all, as distinct from rendered HTML. The problem is that copyright protects, by definition, an actual expression of an idea. This presupposes at least the possibility of communicating the work to another person. Is a web site most similar to a literary work, in which the words are most important? Or is a web site most similar to a visual work, in which the overall appearance is most important? Or is a web site most similar to a computer program, in which the raw content is most important? The OPL clearly assumes that it is being applied to a literary work, so I think that Debian is stuck with this assumption once it has chosen to license its web site under the OPL. This is not unreasonable, since the artistic components of the Debian web site, while distinctive (in the trademark sense), are by no means central to the purpose of the site. Insofar as a web site is a literary work, the unrendered parts of the HTML source are something like the binding and paper size used in a book: regardless of how distinctive and unusual they may be, such parts can never be protected by copyright. -- Mike
