Copyleft/guide
6
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

All uses of \S should really have a ~ to avoid bad line breaks.

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2014-03-19 12:39:40 -04:00
parent 57b7cc2403
commit e8a8778ae5
1 changed files with 7 additions and 7 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

14
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -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.''