(pre-scriptum: I'm still owing Brian some notes on his attempt to bring the discussion on the concrete of "How FDL is hurting open-source". I chose to answer to this one first because I feel that the "recourse to the general principle" that Ben is riding may not be correct)
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Ben Finney < [email protected]> wrote: > Adrian Colomitchi <[email protected]> > writes: > > > But any other works derived from the said documentation that are used > > *for other purposes* won't be restricted by copyright law, no matter > > the license under which the original documentation is published. > > That seems flatly false. Copyright applies (or does not apply) to a work > regardless of the purpose the recipient has for it. If you receive a > work under the FDL, it applies whether you want to use it as > documentation or music or a program or whatever. > IANAL and what I expressed was my perception on the copyright law. Until I'll have time to get a documented answer, I'm pushing some "circumstantial evidence" for the moment: - one would think Disney would be very keen to take down from youtube<http://mashable.com/2009/07/22/alice-in-wonderland-trailer/>anything infringing their copyright, right? Well, please enjoy the "He's a pirate" (Disney copyright) in an arrangement for 40 floppy drives <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qs9jiXOKNls>. - maybe George Lucas was scared stiff to lose another copyright<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12910683>suit so this is why he allows this hardcore rendering of "Imperial March" <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAWF-qhh4pQ> on a CNC machine to still live on you tube? - but maybe you like better 007 and be delighted to hear the theme interpreted by a chamber orchestra of 13 floppy and 1 harddisk drives<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEzXjJN1RH0> ? The above examples use "music copyrighted as playable music and actually being played as music", no transformative repurpose of the* original intended use* (the interpretation is unusual, but the original "piece of art" is still recognizable. Yes, formally, these may be infringing, however I don't think someone would fight for such an end). Maybe if I save Brian's email text into afile and issue aplay -c 2 -f S16_LE -r 44100 afile in my command line, I'm liable for copyright infringement? No, after all Brian asked me to do it, so I do have his permission - unfortunately I don't have his permission to publish/distribute the result of it. But... hang on... Brian *cannot* stop me anyway to post instructions on "A way of how to play his email"... unfortunately, neither do I, because it is **a statement of a fact** (and, as such, is *not* protected by copyright). Maybe this could be a trick one can use to adjust a documentation for an adjusted piece of GNU software? (I don't know, at least the "--help" screen). But... you reckon that publicly exposing these<http://mentalfloss.com/article/29202/11-sculptures-made-books> books <http://pinterest.com/lindaslinks/book-sculptures-altered-books/> for all<http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/22/sculptures-made-from-books-jodi-harvey-brown_n_2741769.html> to admire is a copyright violation? After all, the "Lathe of Heaven" is still within copyright terms, so this map might be infringing<http://matthewpicton.com/paper-sculptures/portland/> when publicly displayed. Adrian _______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list [email protected] http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb Free Software Melbourne home page: http://www.freesoftware.asn.au/melb/
