Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwvax!dogie.macc.wisc.edu!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!rpi!pawl!shadow From: shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: PD or Shareware Copyrights Message-ID: Date: 27 Jun 89 08:24:56 GMT References: <17126@gryphon.COM> Sender: usenet@rpi.edu Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY Lines: 42 In-reply-to: richard@gryphon.COM's message of 26 Jun 89 15:37:53 GMT In article <17126@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >Pretty thin ice and a bad analogy to boot. Well, thank you very little. >First of all, the courts have held that the amount of changes required >to make a program different from another is about 30%. If you take >a PD program and add a few lines of code, it's still considered PD. >Don't argue with me, I dont care. This is what the courts have held. Fine. I stated no legal definitions or precedents, knowing of none specifically. 30% seems reasonable, for the work as a whole. >The argument that you could add a comment and claim it's yours is >also pretty dumb, as while it's true for the SOURCE only, you have >no way of showing the binary contains your comment. Quite so, part of why I said the comment alone is ridiculously extreme... it's gone from the resultant binary. Still, it was never the point. >You are correct about your modifications are subject to your >own copyright. I should hope so... (getting sick of making disputed statements in the middle of the night) >The set of common sense and the law is not a union. This is very true. >``It doesnt have to be fair or make sense, it just has to be legal'' > James J. Coyle in People vs. Brown Show Co. Hmm. Deven -- shadow@[128.113.10.2] Deven T. Corzine (518) 272-5847 shadow@[128.113.10.201] 2346 15th St. Pi-Rho America deven@rpitsmts.bitnet Troy, NY 12180-2306 <> "Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible." - A.K.