> > Is this the same kind of uncertainty that exists about whether computer > > source is subject to copyright protection at all?
On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 02:33:31PM -0400, Mike Bilow wrote: > Copyright protects the "essential character" of a "work of >authorship." > > In the case of a computer program, the source code is clearly included > within the scope of essential character: because the purpose of a > computer program is to be run on a computer, the source code which > is used to generate the executable program is copyrightable. There > is no doubt or uncertainty about this, if the source code itself is > published. And, HTML is the source for what you see on the display. > In the case of a literary work, the typesetting specifications and > layout are not part of the essential character of the work, and are > not protected within the scope of copyright. The issue of whether > page numbers are subject to copyright has actually been litigated > inconclusively. HTML shares some characteristics with typesetting specifications, but I don't see how anyone could confuse the two. > > What we have here is evidence that a work has been copied. That the > > evidence itself might or might not be copyrightable doesn't mean that > > it's not evidence. > > No one disputes that much of the Debian web site has been copied. If > Debian had a copyright notice such as "All rights reserved," then this > would be an open-and-shut case of copyright infringement. The problem is > that Debian, for whatever reason, has chosen to license the copyright on > its web site subject to the OPL. So the question is: did they follow the terms of the OPL. I don't see any reason to ask: Is this a copyrighted work, protected by the OPL. > The relevant question then is: Has API violated the OPL license terms > and, if so, to what extent? API is not using any of the exact words > from the Debian web site in the rendered text. At most, API has used > some of the exact words from the Debian web site in the unrendered > text, such as the META tags. Is any unrendered text part of the > essential character of a web site? That is far from clear. This is only relevant if there's a question about whether we're dealing with a copy of an OPL licensed document. You already stated that there's no question of that. > The real problem is that API has appropriated the artistic content of > the Debian web site. The focus of the OPL is on the literary content > of the work of authorship, in the sense that the work is a book. It > is not clear that, under the license terms of the OPL, Debian can > raise a meaningful objection to what API has done. This was clearly > not what was intended by Debian in choosing to license its web site > content under the OPL, nor does it seem likely that this was what was > intended by the author of the OPL. Nevertheless, relying upon the > actual wording of the OPL itself, I am not sure that what API has done > is a violation of the copyright license. It might be *easy* (for some definition of easy) to fix the html so that it's not a copy of our site any more, but that doesn't mean that it's *been* fixed. -- Raul
