From e8a8778ae5ecd4c252a190febfac3b3458d2ae92 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Bradley M. Kuhn" Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 12:39:40 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] All uses of \S should really have a ~ to avoid bad line breaks. --- gpl-lgpl.tex | 14 +++++++------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex index 3ba9609..523a099 100644 --- a/gpl-lgpl.tex +++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex @@ -1341,10 +1341,10 @@ identical in order to be held a derivative work of an original, while The First Circuit has taken the position that the AFC test is inapplicable when the works in question relate to unprotectable elements set forth in -\S 102(b). Their approach results in a much narrower definition +\S~102(b). Their approach results in a much narrower definition of derivative work for software in comparison to other circuits. Specifically, the -First Circuit holds that ``method of operation,'' as used in \S 102(b) of +First Circuit holds that ``method of operation,'' as used in \S~102(b) of the Copyright Act, refers to the means by which users operate computers. Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland Int’l., Inc., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995). In Lotus, the court held that a menu command @@ -1355,7 +1355,7 @@ controlled. As a result, under the First Circuit’s test, literal copying of a menu command hierarchy, or any other ``method of operation,'' cannot form the basis for a determination that one work is a derivative of another. As a result, courts in the First Circuit that apply the AFC test -do so only after applying a broad interpretation of \S 102(b) to filter out +do so only after applying a broad interpretation of \S~102(b) to filter out unprotected elements. E.g., Real View, LLC v. 20-20 Technologies, Inc., 683 F. Supp.2d 147, 154 (D. Mass. 2010). @@ -1413,7 +1413,7 @@ both a ``method of operation'' (using an approach not dissimilar to the First Circuit's analysis in Lotus) and a ``functional requirement for compatability'' (using Sega v. Accolade, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) and Sony Computer Ent. v. Connectix, 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) as analogies), -and thus unprotectable subject matter under \S 102(b). +and thus unprotectable subject matter under \S~102(b). Perhaps not surprisingly, there have been few other cases involving a highly detailed software derivative work analysis. Most often, cases involve @@ -1926,7 +1926,7 @@ also not trumped by other copyright agreements or components of other entirely separate legal systems. In short, while GPLv2~\S\S0--3 are the parts of the license that defend the freedoms of users and programmers, GPLv2~\S\S4--7 are the parts of the license that keep the playing field clear -so that \S\S 0--3 can do their jobs. +so that \S\S~0--3 can do their jobs. \section{GPLv2~\S4: Termination on Violation} \label{GPLv2s4} @@ -3030,7 +3030,7 @@ covered by terms other than those of the GPL. Such terms may include certain kinds of patent retaliation provisions that are broader than those of section 2. -\section{GPLv3~\S12: Familiar as GPLv2 \S 7} +\section{GPLv3~\S12: Familiar as GPLv2 \S~7} % FIXME: probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though. @@ -3505,7 +3505,7 @@ that a user who wishes to modify or update the library can do so. LGPLv2.1~\S6 lists five choices with regard to supplying library source and granting the freedom to modify that library source to users. We -will first consider the option given by \S 6(b), which describes the +will first consider the option given by \S~6(b), which describes the most common way currently used for LGPLv2.1 compliance on a ``work that uses the library.''