| 1 |
On 19.11.2012 18.33, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> The answer appears to be that a file is the unit |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> I personally consider it to be smaller; a number of lines within |
| 7 |
>> a file, or even a single line, all depending on things. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Yup - any creative expression is copyrightable. Your two line email |
| 10 |
> is completely copyrightable, and so is the one line you quoted. That |
| 11 |
> said, Anthony couldn't have used copyright to prevent you and I from |
| 12 |
> quoting him, as it would almost certainly be considered fair use. |
| 13 |
> That doesn't mean that his email wasn't copyrightable - only that |
| 14 |
> copyright is not an impervious protection. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Under Finnish law there's the concept threshold of originality and I |
| 18 |
doubt you would get a court to accept a single line of email for that. |
| 19 |
There's also a body creating precedent for it but I haven't investigated |
| 20 |
their decisions. I tried googling but couldn't find a source for it but |
| 21 |
I think FSF has also operated so that they haven't required copyright |
| 22 |
assignment for single patches worth a couple lines. This is my memory |
| 23 |
from talking to a GNU maintainer some years back. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Regards, |
| 26 |
Petteri |
Archives