|
I am writing a program which edits a text file created by another
program. The text file has a set of instructions (G-Code: a standard
used by many different types of CNC machines). My program would edit
parts of the text to do something the other program cannot do.
Is the text file created by the other program considered part of
the program or their intellectual property? (There is no copyright
notice attached to this text file).
If I make reference to their program name in my program is this
considered an infringement.
Thanks Mark
hawkeye1964@excite.com
|
| |
| |
"Mark Bevan" <hawkeye1964@excite.com> wrote in misc.legal.moderated:
I am writing a program which edits a text file created by another
program. The text file has a set of instructions (G-Code: a standard
used by many different types of CNC machines). My program would edit
parts of the text to do something the other program cannot do.
Is the text file created by the other program considered part of
the program or their intellectual property? (There is no copyright
notice attached to this text file).
The lack of a copyright notice means nothing. (Neither would the
presence of one.) In general the output of programs is the property
of the person or corporation that entered the input. Some early
programs did try to assert ownership of their output, but as far as
I know none of them ever made it stick.
So as far as copyright goes, if you have a program that massages
output files owned by your user, I think you're okay.
I would worry about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, however.
That makes it a very serious crime to decrypt encrypted formats,
even if you own the media or the information. It's a highly complex
law (and an ill-advised one, IMHO) but I believe the key element is
reverse engineering, or breaking an encryption. If you have a plain
text file, you're not breaking any encryption and you're probably
okay. Likewise if the file format follows an open standard (as you
seem to imply) and your program relies on that standard, you're
probably okay.
If I make reference to their program name in my program is this
considered an infringement.
No. A mere mention of something can never be a copyright
infringement.
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
|
| |
| |
I am writing a program which edits a text file created by another
program... Is the text file created by the other program considered part
of
the program or their intellectual property?
That's an interesting question. If you have a serious concern you should
consult a lawyer who practices in this area, but I'm pretty sure you have
nothing to worry about.
In terms of more conventional information technology, the question would be:
does the owner of the copyright in a compiler have a copyright in object
programs which the compiler generates? When I phrase question this way, I
get a pretty strong gut reaction of, "No, that's ridiculous!" No software
developer could tolerate such a situation, but I have never seen a licensing
agreement for a compiler that contained language to avoid it.
In another context, the existence of such a right would imply that Adobe
Systems has a copyright in any image created with Adobe Illustrator. That
seems even more ridiculous.
I did a quick check on the case law, and I could not find any cases on
point, one way or the other. I also searched for articles in U.S. law
journals, and I found plenty of articles about "copyright" and "object
code," but all of them concerned object code which was copyrighted because
it was compiled from a copyrighted source program. This suggests to me that
anyone who has considered the issue has come to the same conclusion I have:
it is a nonissue, not worth arguing in court and not worth writing about.
The only basis I can think of for claiming such a copyright would be that
the output of the program is a derivative work of the program, in the same
sense that the Harry Potter movies are derivative works of the Harry Potter
books, or a comic book version of War and Peace is a derivative work of the
novel. That's intuitively unreasonable, and the definition of "derivative
work" in 17 USC 101 does not make it sound any less so:
"A 'derivative work' is a work based on one or more pre-existing works, such
as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,... or any other form
in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted."
I'm persuaded that the NC program's output is a derivative work of the
program's input, and NOT of the program itself.
|
| |
| |
I am writing a program which edits a text file created by another
program... Is the text file created by the other program considered part
of
That's an interesting question. If you have a serious concern you should
consult a lawyer who practices in this area, but I'm pretty sure you have
nothing to worry about.
In terms of more conventional information technology, the question would be:
does the owner of the copyright in a compiler have a copyright in object
programs which the compiler generates? When I phrase question this way, I
get a pretty strong gut reaction of, "No, that's ridiculous!" No software
developer could tolerate such a situation, but I have never seen a licensing
agreement for a compiler that contained language to avoid it.
Many compiler vendors claim a copyright (or decades ago, used to)
on the portion of the runtime libraries embedded in executable
programs output by the compiler. Some of them even went into a big
deal about "runtime licenses" for the executables should you try
to distribute them. The compiler vendor owns the library. The
user/programmer owns his own code in object form. The executable
contains copyrighted material of both, usually within one file.
Some of these issues may be moot in the presence of shared libraries,
which might contain all the compiler-vendor-copyright stuff, and
the executable, which contains only user/programmer-copyright stuff.
I believe GNU also claimed (and maybe still does) copyright on the
code portion of the parser that was contained in a file included with
"bison" and which was output by bison with substitutions of data
for the particular parser. The code skeleton is written by GNU.
The data is created out of the user/programmer's parser input.
Both exist in the source file output, and both exist in a different
form in an executable created from that source file.
I am not sure that these claims are unreasonable.
Gordon L. Burditt
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 14 May 2004 19:23:20 -0400, hawkeye1964@excite.com (Mark
Bevan) wrote:
Is the text file created by the other program considered part of
the program or their intellectual property? (There is no copyright
notice attached to this text file).
I'm not sure I understand the question. Who or what created the
=contents= of the text file? In other words, are you asking
(a) If Bob writes the Great American Novel using Microsoft Word as his
word processor, does Bill Gates get a piece of the action?
or
(b) If Many writes her will by answering a couple of prompts in a
"WillMaker" program, which then spits out a will that is enforceable
in his home state, does WillMaker own the "copyright" to the will?
If (a) I think it's pretty clear that Bob owns the resulting text. If
(b) WillMaker probably owns it.
If I make reference to their program name in my program is this
considered an infringement.
Can't say for sure without details, but probably not. Generally, so
long as you mention a trademark (here, the program name) to accurately
refer to the program itself, do not in any way imply that the program
is yours or anyone's other than the owner's, you're on pretty safe
ground.
But, especially if this is being done n a business context, you really
should get competent legal advice.
-
Mark Kolber
Denver, Colorado
=======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"
=======================
BTW, this message is NOT legal advice. It is only very general information about
a legal topic. Legal advice depends very much on the facts and circumstances of
a specific situation and no one should make the mistake of representing
themselves based on a general summary they get from a forum, newsgroup or web
site.If you want legal advice, hire a lawyer.
|
| |
| |
[snip]
I believe GNU also claimed (and maybe still does) copyright on the
code portion of the parser that was contained in a file included with
"bison" and which was output by bison with substitutions of data
for the particular parser. The code skeleton is written by GNU.
The data is created out of the user/programmer's parser input.
Both exist in the source file output, and both exist in a different
form in an executable created from that source file.
I am not sure that these claims are unreasonable.
Gordon L. Burditt
Old versions of bison did in fact have such a provision. Because the
bison-produced code is not separable in any useful way from the user's
original code at that point, the code output was in effect all GPL'd,
causing the program you compiled it into to fall under GPL as well.
This was a counterproductive provision, which inhibited the acceptance
of bison, and it was dropped some years ago. Similar provisions in
commercial software (for example, years ago, there was a font design
program whose vendor claimed copyright in fonts designed with the
program) tend to result in market rejection and early demise of the
software.
It is also frequently (indeed almost always) the case that a compiler
outputs code that must be linked with libraries that are copyrighted
by the vendor. In this case, the vendor's terms for redistributing the
libraries come into play. It is common, but by no means universal, for
the vendor to grant a license to distribute the libraries free of
royalties. Sometimes only certain libraries can be distributed
royalty-free; thus, a certain report engine allows you to distribute
the libraries that are needed to produce already-designed reports, but
not the libraries needed to design or compile new reports. Sometimes
none of the libraries are royalty-free, and you must pay the vendor a
royalty on each copy distributed.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
Christopher Green <cj.green@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
It is also frequently (indeed almost always) the case that a compiler
outputs code that must be linked with libraries that are copyrighted
by the vendor. In this case, the vendor's terms for redistributing the
libraries come into play. It is common, but by no means universal, for
the vendor to grant a license to distribute the libraries free of
royalties.
One common method of handling this is to for the vendor to grant
permission for you to distribute the libraries _when statically linked
with your code_. MS Visual C++ (Professional) comes with that
permission. You can build a program, statically link it with the
(non-debug) library(s), and distribute your binary.
They do not give permission for you to distribute the libraries as a
stand-alone DLL, nor for you to distribute the debug libraries (which
have all sorts of useful information about types, line numbers, etc.).
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and
to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising
liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.
|
| |
| |
|
