From owner-freebsd-current Thu Dec 21 14:57:36 1995 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id OAA18424 for current-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 14:57:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from fw.ast.com (fw.ast.com [165.164.6.25]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA18419 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 14:57:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from nemesis by fw.ast.com with uucp (Smail3.1.29.1 #2) id m0tStsj-0000zcC; Thu, 21 Dec 95 16:54 CST Received: by nemesis.lonestar.org (Smail3.1.27.1 #20) id m0tStkJ-000Cn2C; Thu, 21 Dec 95 16:45 WET Message-Id: Date: Thu, 21 Dec 95 16:45 WET To: current@freebsd.org, gene@starkhome.cs.sunysb.edu From: uhclem%nemesis@fw.ast.com (Frank Durda IV) Sent: Thu Dec 21 1995, 16:45:55 CST Subject: Re: conf.c and USL copyright at top Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk [1]According to the lawyers at two major corporations I have worked at, [1]if you have changed more than 12% of the functional code, it's yours. [1](Changing variable names and comments don't count.) [2]Gene Stark writes: [2]"It's yours" just means you can add your own copyright to it, [2]not delete the original one, right? In 99% of the instances where this took place that I am aware of (twenty or thirty), the original copyright or authorship was not mentioned in the derived work. There was no payment or license to the original person or company either. Then they filed new copyrights that were accepted (there aren't any checks worth mentioning on infringing copyrights). In one case, the derived work did mention the original source simply for marketing reasons, ie "based on the best-selling works of %s", that sort of thing. More specific as "100% compatible with" or "just as fast as". I've even seen some of my own work end up in a product of another vendor, covered by only a few hundred bytes of "extensions". [2]I have trouble believing that simply by changing 12% of something, [2]you erase its status as a "derived work" and then can delete the [2]original copyright. Again, I am not a lawyer but I do know that the known laws of physics seem to go on hold when the legal system is involved. So what seems obvious, fair or makes sense has no place in how it really works. Look at some of software patents that have been granted if you want your sanity really tested. Circular queues and ring buffers were patented in 1982! I guess nobody every used them before then - just ignore those samples in Knuth that date back into the 70s. Please see the USC or a lawyer familiar with copyright and patent law for information on this subject. Oh, and be sure to insert quarters before you try to start it. If you discover the 12% rule is obsolete or doesn't apply, I'd like to know. Frank Durda IV |"Everything you know is wrong." or uhclem%nemesis@fw.ast.com (Fastest Route)| - Firesign Theatre ...letni!rwsys!nemesis!uhclem |Why do I quote these guys on all ...decvax!fw.ast.com!nemesis!uhclem |legal topics?