Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.bsd:3990 misc.legal.computing:1552 Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!mips!mips!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!ogicse!qiclab!leonard From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,misc.legal.computing Subject: Re: Poisoned textbooks and net articles? Message-ID: <1992Aug20.085817.5749@qiclab.scn.rain.com> Date: 20 Aug 92 08:58:17 GMT Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Aug20.085817.5749 References: <1992Aug5.224337.6733@cirrus.com> <1992Aug10.225150.29474@unislc.uucp> <7154@skye.ed.ac.uk> Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon. Lines: 30 jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes: >Well, just when _are_ we allowed to use information we read in books >or on the net? And what's the point of reading these things if the >answer is "never"? How much does copyright restrict us? (Is there >any point in reading books, for instance?) >I'm not trying to disagree with you here -- I'd like to know the >answers to these questions, and I'm starting to worry about what >the answers might turn out to be. >A lot of people buy books in order to learn more about how to >write programs. These books are copyrighted. Do we have to >artificially skew our code so that we don't use exactly the >same technique we read about or what? You are confusing copyright and patent. You can use *all* the info you want from a copyrighted work. If you *copy* sections of it with only minor changes, you are violating copyright. Using the *techniques* is not covered. You *might* run into trouble if it could be shown that your stuff was a "derivative work". I'm not really sure what the law says there. -- Leonard Erickson leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com CIS: [70465,203] 70465.203@compuserve.com FIDO: 1:105/51 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org (The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)