@HL

Welcome!


Again...

Last edited by pavlor on 13-Sep-2015 at 09:06 AM.

@blizz1220

Quote:

blizz1220 wrote: @cdimauro Number6 detected , thread re-routing to topic Maybe I won't be popular for saying this but I will have to take your word (and Umisef's) that this isn't something to be proud of but I see few things in Hyperion's answer : Way I read it from Piru's site : "We have removed and replaced those files on your request but we are not admitting guilt by this ( "allegedly" ) , rather being aware of situation acting." Asking for apology might be much , it's not legal thing it's how polite you want to be.Answer seemed very neutral to me. And who is the one who should apologize anyway , shouldn't it be developer or representative of dev team ? The legal part of answer I understood as counter-argument for accusation of copyright theft.Coder might use different arguments but this one is that too.

The question is very simple, "blizz". In computer science terms, we say that it's a "boolean" question.

Only one thing of the following can happen:

- Ben is wrong, so header and documentation files are covered by copyright (and even rephrasing something configures an infringement). Here Hyperion did a criminal act.

- Ben is right, headers and documentation files aren't covered by copyright. Hyperion is allowed to copy them, but this also means that MorphOS and AROS teams can take all Hyperion's headers and documentation and do a verbatim copy. No rephrasing is needed, and not even removing the copyright, because "it's part of the interface".

IMO the document from the EU court is quite clear, and case one applies.

P.S. Let's leave the "apologize" et similia stuff, and focus only on the core of the "dilemma".

Quote:

Imagine a party were to reimplement substantially all of iOS API's to the extent that it exhibits a large degree of compatibility and market it to manufacturers of mobile devices. I am pretty sure you would be in court in no time.

Isn't it what Blackberry, Jolla did with Android ?

Last time I checked, Google didn't sue them.

Microsoft also reimplemented most iOS & Android APIs with Windows Bridge. I guess their legal department would have advised against it if it was illegal...

This doesn't seem to be a problem to Apple who invited Microsoft on stage at Apple's latest event.

Last edited by Leo on 13-Sep-2015 at 09:29 AM.

_________________
http://www.warpdesign.fr/

@cdimauro

Quote:

is quite clear: "ideas", "principles", "functionality", "format of data" are NOT copyrightable.

Yes but they can be patented. To protect the inventor of that idea.

The idea is protected by a patent: as a patent is much harder to protect, and most abstract concepts has been thanked about before. There for software is most not patented.

Copyrights extends just stalling or distributing of work or on paper. However, the idea on the paper is not physical object there for can't copy-protected.

Just imagine trying to sell a school book, that consist of 1000 of idea, and concepts, if royalties to etch party has to be paid.

Know this the software industry try to get "you" (the user or downloader) to sign a contract with software developer, the so-called EULA. End User License Agreement, that is legal document that stats how software or products should be used.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 13-Sep-2015 at 09:42 AM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 13-Sep-2015 at 09:31 AM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 13-Sep-2015 at 09:31 AM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@NutsAboutAmiga: I already talked about ideas, patents, copyright.

EULA is a different thing, but it's subject to law (e.g.: parts can be void due to law).

@Leo

Quote:

Microsoft also reimplemented most iOS & Android APIs with Windows Bridge. I guess their legal department would have advised against it if it was illegal... This doesn't seem to be a problem to Apple

But it does seem a problem to the homegrown lawyers around here, apparently.

_________________
The Rear Window blog

AmigaOne X5000/020 @ 2GHz / 4GB RAM / Radeon RX 560 / ESI Juli@ / AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition
SAM440ep-flex @ 667MHz / 1GB RAM / Radeon 9250 / AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition

@cdimauro

Maybe , you can find the answer only one way which would be
to start a court case.What would be current position on this
issue is hard to know without very similar case that already
went through it.What would be asked in court case ? Apology ?
Removal of code on what ground ? Money compensation ?
You could loose a case for not showing up or because judge
gets it wrong (although judge is always right) , would that prove
anything then ?

As for headers as part of source file I think I read you can
replicate them with removing copyright.It would make no
sense to keep copyright , you'd be admitting guilt.

And I really hope the reason that MOS and AOS4 teams are
reading each others SDKs to last letter has something more
noble of a goal then just trying to catch other side red handed.

Besides , from a legal point of view Piru's site looks like something
I would make if I was gonna sue the other side for :

Copyright Infringement in OS4 SDK

No wonder other side will react to that in same way.Although Hyperion
as a company is legally responsible for mistakes that doesn't mean it's
morally responsible for them or personally.

@NutsAboutAmiga

Not in your country I think , it doesn't allow software patents.

@Trixie

As I said fact that Microsoft isn't suing ReactOS (which
is "probably illegal" in US) doesn't prove much more than
their unwillingness to get bad publicity.

I would bet you that if ReactOS started pushing Windows out
of market they would launch few dozens lawsuits on different
grounds and ask for compensation.

@blizz1220

Well you can get patent if it's a new invention.

You can then argue about what is a invention. What is invention or not, is rubbing two stick on etch other to get fire a invention, or is it, something else?

How you protect the idea, that rubbing two stick to get to get a fire, and get people pay you bananas every time they use that idea.

https://patentstyret.no/Patent/Beskyttelse-av-oppfinnelser-pa-programvare-og-apper-/

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 13-Sep-2015 at 10:01 AM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 13-Sep-2015 at 09:59 AM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 13-Sep-2015 at 09:59 AM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 13-Sep-2015 at 09:57 AM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@cdimauro

If you believe you can approach the law in a "boolean" or even "binary" fashion as you are describing, you have just confirmed my point that you need suitable qualifications and experience as legal counsel to make these calls.

Even then lawyers might not agree or courts might not agree.

Hence the existence of an appeal procedure or the existence of a US Supreme Court or EU Court of Justice.

Thanks for checking out my LinkedIn profile Bernie!

_________________

@jorit2
Quote:

I can see his (Ben ?) argument: a header file would be a file needed to exploit certain of the functions of a computer program, hence, is not a form of expression, and as such ... is not protected. I am however not sure he got it right: This advice says the format of the file, in this case "a header file" is not protected, it doesn't say whether the file itself is protected.

However, Ben Hermans is also claiming autodocs are not copyrightable.

I could accept his view that API header files are not copyrightable but autodocs?

Last edited by itix on 13-Sep-2015 at 10:08 AM.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

@Hyperionmp

Quote:

If you believe you can approach the law in a "boolean" or even "binary" fashion as you are describing, you have just confirmed my point that you need suitable qualifications and experience as legal counsel to make these calls. Even then lawyers might not agree or courts might not agree.

Thank you.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

@NutsAboutAmiga

Yes but sticks are hardware and it's a bit to "big"
of a patent to register.Maybe some caveman can prove
prior usage in that case.

If you invented flying car or car running on water and build
a prototype that works (might be needed) then you could
register it as a patent and live forever happy

@itix

They should as copyright-able as any document or book is, but you can write your own book with a similar story, in that case it's not the same book.

But if you find out that word are the same, the paragraphs are the same, the comments are the same, the text formatting, and of sentences are the same, you might argue it's been edited.

Not a new book.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@NutsAboutAmiga

I ask you to compare tree.doc from OS4 SDK against MorphOS SDK and then read Herman's statement. Please.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

@Hyperionmp

Quote:

Thanks for checking out my LinkedIn profile Bernie!

Ah, progress --- so you are at least confirming that is indeed Ben Hermans posting as HyperionMP. Thank you!


So, Ben, are the OS4 header files protected by copyright or not? In your view, as the Director Legal Affairs of Hyperion CVBA (i.e. the company that claims copyright in most of them)? And in your function as an "Attorney at law in the fields of [...] intellectual property and ICT law"?

And the same question, just replacing "OS4" with "MorphOS"?


I am not asking to discuss this with you. As you keep pointing out, I lack the degree and the domain knowledge to do so. I am just asking you to state your view.

If it helps, I am perfectly happy to send an official request to Hyperion, requesting permission to include OS4's header files with a product I intend to distribute. Would you prefer that over me just asking for your view on AW.net? Just say so!

@Hyperionmp

Quote:

If you believe you can approach the law in a "boolean" or even "binary" fashion as you are describing, you have just confirmed my point that you need suitable qualifications and experience as legal counsel to make these calls.

Oh, BTW, Ben --- given what you just wrote there, how do you justify sending the rather boolean
Quote:

"there was no copyright protection to infringe in the first place"

statement to your service provider?

Last edited by umisef on 13-Sep-2015 at 10:29 AM.

< removed for personal attack >

Last edited by Darrin on 13-Sep-2015 at 05:23 PM.
Last edited by megol on 13-Sep-2015 at 12:02 PM.

@umisef

Well does not lawyers argue for one thing one day, and the other the other day.
Depending on if, they are prosecuting or defending. I am not sure a statement like that is in a lawyer's interest.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 13-Sep-2015 at 10:38 AM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS