Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 07:54:10 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 46 Message-ID: References: <85ca46a5-03d8-41ad-ab7e-8e5c3b781e48@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: CNsg4fVcCsvs3UaOgZtQCw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:29770 On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:07:38 -0400, Andrew Haley wrote: > What can possibly be more restrictive than a binary that you're not > allowed to use, study, or change? That's the only thing that you're > not allowed to do with GPL code. > Where does that exist? 1) Binaries aren't protected under U.S. copyright law. (Apple Computer v. Franklin Computer) 2) US individuals have the right to modify code for their own use. (Lewis Galoob Toys v. Nintendo of America) (Vault v. Quaid) (Narrell v. Freeman) 3) Personal use is a form of fair-use. (Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios) 4) Americans have a right of fair-use. (Folsom v. Marsh ) 5) Defeating fair-use requires proof of harm or that market potential would be hurt if use is widespread. (Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios ) In regards to prior and past conversations on trivial changes to Public Domain code being copyrightable: 6) Trivially "similar" derivative works aren't copyrightable. (Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp) (Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp) (Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures) (Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp.) 7) Trivial changes to Public Domain works aren't copyrightable. (Walker & Zanger, Inc. v. Paragon Indus.) 8) A derivative work must be sufficiently different. (Gracen v. Bradford Exchange) Rod Pemberton