Olin Lathrop wrote: > Rolf wrote: >> Macro's by definition are included (verbatim) in all places they are >> used. >> = > > We're talking about copying the file itself, not how the machine later us= es > its contents as part of creating a derived executable. > = Just so we are clear, here's your copyright notice....: ; *************************************************************** ; * Copyright (C) 2008, Embed Inc (http://www.embedinc.com) * ; * * ; * Permission to copy this file is granted as long as this * ; * copyright notice is included in its entirety at the * ; * beginning of the file, whether the file is copied in whole * ; * or in part and regardless of whether other information is * ; * added to the copy. * ; * * ; * The contents of this file may be used in any way, * ; * commercial or otherwise. This file is provided "as is", * ; * and Embed Inc makes no claims of suitability for a * ; * particular purpose nor assumes any liability resulting from * ; * its use. * ; *************************************************************** Uhm, the notice at the top of your file clearly says that any copies of = the file in *whole or in part* need to have your copyright notice on the = whole resulting file... Now, you state that 'We're talking about copying the file itself, not = how the machine later uses it's contents as part of creating a derived = executable.'... well, that's not true. The copyright notice is talking = about the file, it's contents, in part or in whole, and that anything = those parts or whole are copied to are then subject to the copyright = requirements. Now, all you need to do is clearly define 'copy'. The law is somewhat = unclear about what constitutes a copy, but, given that a 'compiled' = version of code is considered to be a copy of the source code (a = translation), it is no stretch that a pre-processor or assembler that = copies the include file to the final binary 'executable' is in fact = copying the code. The macro processor will likely not copy the copyright = notice with the macro that it copies to the final pre-assembled version = of the code..... > If I wrote the code: > = >> ; Macro file mac.inc >> mac macro >> ; This code is copyright by embed inc. >> nop >> endm >> >> --- >> >> include mac.inc >> mycode >> mac ; call the mac macro >> >> Any self-respecting copyright lawyer may make a convincing case that all >> the code in 'mycode' is copyright to embed inc. >> = > > First this isn't what I'm doing. The copyright notice doesn't appear in = any > macro, only once at the beginning of the file outside of all macros. > = Uhm, that's exactly what you are doing.... sure, the notice may not = appear in the macro, but the copyrightable code used under the copyright = notice surely does. By your definition, since the macro processor copies = the contents of the macro in to the target application it should also = re-assign the copyright to embed inc. Just because it is a macro = processor that does the copying does not mean that the copy is not made. > Second, even with this silly and contrived example, the copyright wouldn't > apply to the derived binary. That would be a license, not a copyright > issue. > > = This is a very misleading statement. You need to brush up on copyright = law. As a summary: a work is either copyrighted, or it is in the public domain. Unless = otherwise determined, all work is copyrighted (i.e. all work is = copyrighted to the author unless there is an explicit release to the = public domain... the abscence of a copyright notice does not make the = work public domain). The author may assign the copyright ownership to a third party. Now, a third party may not copy a copyrighted work unless they have = approval from the copyright owner, or they use the copyrighted work in a = manner that is consistent with the exceptions in the law (fair use, = journalism, academic references, library, etc...). If you have permission from the author to use the copyrighted work then = you have a 'license' to copy the work in the prescribed way. Some = copyright owners choose to expose the license terms as part of the = copyright notice to make things simple... like you, and the GPL, etc... = Thus copyright licenses and copyright itself are inescapably linked. the = copyright license determines the terms under which the copyright work = can be copied.... saying "That would be a license, not a copyright = issue." shows your ignorance in this regard. So, the first paragraph of your copyright notice dictates the license = terms for copying the embed inc copyright work. It says: " ....as long = as this copyright notice is included in its entirety at the beginning of = the file ". So, your copyright notice provides an implied license to = copy the code (in whole or in part) but only so long as the copyright = notice (and the assignment of the copyright is transferred to = embed-inc.) is placed at the top of the derivative work, and all other = work that the code is copied to (and regardless of whether other = information is added to the copy). So, the question you (or a user of your environment) should be asking a = lawyer is "Does including a file distributed with 'your' license in 'my' = work constitute a copy of 'your' work (in whole or in part)?" If the answer is yes, then bingo, you are wrong and I am right. If the answer is maybe, then we are in a legal grey area that should = probably be avoided. If the answer is no, then fine, I will be wrong, and you will be right = (and I will be surprised too). On a more technical level, does the assembler macro processor make a = 'copy' of the macro? By design it does... and just because it is a = program doing the work does not mean I escape the license terms of the = copyright! Any lawyers here? Here's an interesting synopsis of what constitues a computer 'copy'. The = summary is that the Business Software Alliance (a group whose purpose is = to sue businesses that use copyrighted programs beyon the license terms) = claims that the software installed on the computer's hard drive is a = copy of the software and thus should be counted when determining how = many copies of the software the defendant has. The court ruled that the = copies of the software on the disk were put there lawfully (because when = they were put there, the license had not yet expired), and that = infringement of the copyright was only happening when the software was = copied from the disk to memory of the computer.... thus, the computers = that had been decomissioned and stored in closets, or re-assigned to = people who did not use the parogram were not infringing on the copyright... Imagine that, copyright infringement can happen when copyright code is = copied from the disk to RAM! Now, tell me whether the more explicit = copying that the macro processor does is more or less impacted by this = type of ruling: http://www.scottandscottllp.com/main/software_audit_what_constitutes_a_copy= .aspx Here's another appeals judgement worth reading. Here's the relevant part: [39] We have found no case which specifically holds that the copying of = software into RAM creates a "copy" under the Copyright Act. However, it = is generally accepted that the loading of software into a computer = constitutes the creation of a copy under the Copyright Act. /See e.g. = Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd.,/ 847 F.2d 255, 260 (5th Cir. 1988) = ("the act of loading a program from a medium of storage into a = computer's memory creates a copy of the program"); 2 /Nimmer on = Copyright,/ =A7 8.08 at 8-105 (1983) ("Inputting a computer program = entails the preparation of a copy."); /Final Report of the National = Commission on the New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works,/ at 13 = (1978) ("the placement of a work into a computer is the preparation of a = copy"). We recognize that these authorities are somewhat troubling since = they do not specify that a copy is created regardless of whether the = software is loaded into the RAM, the hard disk or the read only memory = ("ROM"). However, since we find that the copy created in the RAM can be = "perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated," we hold that the = loading of software into the RAM creates a copy under the Copyright Act. = 17 U.S.C. =A7 101 . We = affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment as well as the = permanent injunction as it relates to this issue. The full ruling can be found here: = http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/991_F2d_511.htm Basically, copying a program to memory constitutes a copy according to = copyright law. Fascinating stuff, yes? And yet you think that getting a program to copy your code from one = place to another does not constitute a copy? The more you make me investigate your license the more I realize that = your license can only require all programs built using your macros be = assigned to embed inc. .... > OK, I can see now that you're just being deliberatly contrary and > argumentative. > > = Absolutely, I am deliberately trying to get you to see that your = copyright notice imposes restrictions on the code's usage, whether that = is your intent or not. You seem to fail to see this, so to prevent you = from making a fool of yourself or others later, I am trying to help you = see the truth of this. If you don't want to see the truth then that's a = different thing. > I let people use my code, and the only thing they have to do in return is > preserve the copyright notice at the top of the file. You can otherwise = use > it any way you want. You don't have to publish your versions, or any > enhancements you've made, and you can even sell the result. If this is true then you should alter your copyright notice to reflect = this sentiment in a legally meaningful way. You may want to try the = 'Creative Commons Attribution License' whcih seems to match your sentiment: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ and in detail: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode > My stuff is way > more liberal than the GNU licesenses, for example. I'm not sure exactly > what your beef is, but if you don't want to use my stuff you don't have t= o. > There is no reason to go around spreading misinformation and fear about it > though. > > = At the moment I may be spreading fear, but you are spreading the = misinformation, and the fear is appropriate. All I am saying is that I = can see ambiguity in your licensing which will require the attention of = a suitable lawyer to resolve. Rolf -- = http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist