On Jan 25, 2008 9:07 AM, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My first question would be whether those files would contain sufficient > creative expression to qualify for copyright protection. If they don't > (and I am not sure something like /etc/make.conf is 'creative'), then > GPLv3 cannot apply to those files.
Not all jurisdictions require "creative expression" for copyright protection. The UK, for example, only requires a work to be "original" - i.e. not copied. So I think we have to assume that at least *some* of those files are going to be protected. And most of the material under /usr/share or /usr/doc will certainly be protected by copyright. > The next question would be how you determine from a file in /etc > what the "Program" is as GPLv3 defines it. You could argue that > /etc/make.conf is a separate work (if creative) that is part of > a collective work called 'make'. Yes - part of the problem is that the GPL does not clearly define what "the work" means. > Since I'm entitled to remove parts from a GPLv3 work and convey > only the remaining parts, I don't see anything unlawful about offering > execute-only access to a binary and read access to the manpage and/or > configuration files. Good point. I agree. John (TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
