From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 21 04:56:20 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 111D616A474 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 04:56:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from mail1.webmaster.com (mail1.webmaster.com [216.152.64.168]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A964D43D48 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 04:56:19 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from however by webmaster.com (MDaemon.PRO.v8.1.3.R) with ESMTP id md50001113829.msg for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:50:59 -0700 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Freebsd-Chat@Freebsd. Org" Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:55:35 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <4495F9A1.8040407@gmail.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Importance: Normal X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:50:59 -0700 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:51:01 -0700 Subject: RE: Fwd: Serious breach of copyright -- First post X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 04:56:20 -0000 > I had a look at http://www.houfug.org/help/install_freebsd.htm and I am > afraid that you will find this article is not eligible for copyright. It > constitutes neither an artistic nor literary work. The article conveys > only facts and facts are not eligible for copyright. Wow, you are seriously confused (trolling?). The article conveys only facts and facts are not elgible for copyright. But the article IS NOT the facts it conveys. It is one particular way of conveying those facts. If you expressed those same facts a different way, you would not be violating his copyright. But if you copy his creative choice of words to express those facts, you are. He is not claiming the facts. Only his choice of ways to convey them. Each of the facts listed on that page could be expressed many different ways. "Next do X to Y." "Now you must take Y and do X to it." "The next step involves Y. Do X to it." And so on. These are forumlaic of course, but the real thing is actually much more creative. For fun, pick three random steps in his procedure and come up with three totally different ways to say them (even use very different words -- the windows machine, the host machine, the machine with the installation files, the first machine, Fred, ...). It's easy. However, that a reasonably smart (I presume) person could make an error like this strongly argues against his presumption of malice. DS