From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 20 09:45:49 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E656916A481; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:45:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6257D43D45; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:45:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spam.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D6A82085; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:45:43 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Tests: none X-Spam-Learn: disabled X-Spam-Score: 0.0/3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on tim.des.no Received: from xps.des.no (des.no [80.203.243.180]) by tim.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CC5F2082; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:45:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: by xps.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 0086433C8D; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:45:42 +0200 (CEST) From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Dennis Olvany References: <4495F9A1.8040407@gmail.com> <867j3dwjq3.fsf@xps.des.no> <449691D9.4020704@gmail.com> <86odwputto.fsf@xps.des.no> <4497737D.5020902@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:45:42 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4497737D.5020902@gmail.com> (Dennis Olvany's message of "Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:03:09 -0500") Message-ID: <86d5d4upmh.fsf@xps.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: David Hoffman , freebsd-user-groups@freebsd.org, thisdayislong , freebsd-chat@freebsd.org, ingrid@cityscope.net, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fwd: Serious breach of copyright -- First post X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:45:50 -0000 Dennis Olvany writes: > Johnathan Michaels hit on the next point I would like to make and > that is the distinction between patent and copyright. A method or > process may be patented, but the factual written procedure of such > may not be copyrighted. I'll follow up with some examples of the > types are things that are not copyrightable in a final attempt to > convey my point. You are wrong. The method or process is patentable. A written description of the method or process is copyrightable. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no