🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jun1.230158.28001@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

| >The OSF/rose object file format is copyrighted in the manner of
| >X11/BSD (ie, you can use, don't nuke the copyrights), but obviously
| >you need to modify your system program loader to handle it.  At one
| >time, the FSF was interested in OSF/rose for use with the full GNU
| >system.  I don't know if they are still thinking of using it.

It's apperant, I misspoke.  I don't believe we copyright'ed the object
file format, rather the include files and such.  We wanted people to
use it free to use it.

Here is the copyright message on one of the include files shipped with
revision 1.0 of OSF/1:

/*
 * Copyright (c) 1990
 * Open Software Foundation, Inc.
 * 
 * Permission is hereby granted to use, copy, modify and freely distribute
 * the software in this file and its documentation for any purpose without
 * fee, provided that the above copyright notice appears in all copies and
 * that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
 * supporting documentation.  Further, provided that the name of Open
 * Software Foundation, Inc. ("OSF") not be used in advertising or
 * publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without prior
 * written permission from OSF.  OSF makes no representations about the
 * suitability of this software for any purpose.  It is provided "as is"
 * without express or implied warranty.
 */
/* mach_o_header.h
 * 
 * This is the machine-independent declaration of the header for the
 * OSF version of the Mach-O object file format. The contents of the 
 * real file header are copied into this structure so that they can be 
 * interpreted in a straightforward way.
 *
 * NOTE:  THIS IS PRELIMINARY AND WILL PROBABLY CHANGE
 *
 * OSF/1 Release 1.0
*/


| Does anyone have more information on these questions:
| 
| 1) is a file format copyrightable in the U.S.
| 
| 2) is a file format copyrightable according to the new EC copyright
|    directives
| 
| 3) is OSF/rose original and creative enough to qualify for protection
|    according to the new EC copyright directives
| 
| 4) does the U.S. copyright for programs require creativity

See above.  The object file format is fairly different from others,
such as COFF, or a.out.

| 
| Perhaps Michael can also tell the OSF position in this; ie, where do
| they think the file format is copyrightable.
| 
| At least 2) and 3) are not clear at all, 4) I just don't know about.
| 
| I suppose 1) is not very clear either, but here's something I found in
| my files:
| 
| > FYI, 102 (b) of the U.S. Copyright Act:
| > In no case does copyright protection for an original work of
| > authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method
| > of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the
| > form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied
| > in such work.
| 
| A file format would seem to me to be something like what is described
| in 102 (b).  But then so would user interfaces.
| 
| The following proposed amendment was not accepted to the EC copyright
| directive.  I don't know if it matters, but it might:
| 
| > Whereas, for the avoidance of doubt, it has to be made clear that
| > only the expression of a computer program is protected and that
| > ideas and principles, procedures, processes, systems, methods of
| > operation and concepts which underlie any element of a program,
| > including its interfaces, are not protected by copyright under this
| > Directive; Whereas, these unprotectible items include, for example,
| > protocols for communication, rules for exchanging or mutually using
| > information that has been exchanged, formats for data, and the
| > syntax and semantics of a programming language;
| 
| //Jyrki

| 
--
Michael Meissner	email: meissner@osf.org		phone: 617-621-8861
Open Software Foundation, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA, 02142

You are in a twisty little passage of standards, all conflicting.