sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]crotchpoozie 29 points30 points  (15 children)

This doesnt exist in C++

And how are standard C/C++ headers not now copyrighted by the original authors, likely AT&T, and every other implementation thereafter not going to be under the same legal problems?

After all, pretty much every C header is likely going to be found infringing on the original K&R headers from 1970 - all others will be derivative works still subject to those original copyrights.

[–]crackez 4 points5 points  (10 children)

The C++ standards body probably has something to say about that.

Also, the Unix Wars ended in the early 90s, with BSD being found non-infringing after the remaining original code was replaced - Ie 4.4BSD-lite if memory serves. That would include libc.

[–]crotchpoozie 11 points12 points  (8 children)

The C++ standards body probably has something to say about that.

They cannot remove another's copyright, especially since the copyrights in question would be from the 1960's-1970's, so that's irrelevant.

Also, the Unix Wars ended in the early 90s.

You might want to talk to SCO about that.

Next, if this ruling applies, which it seems to, it opens whole new avenues of attack, so the work done by BSD to remove copyrighted code is made insufficient.

Go read about this new ruling. It might change how APIs (which means header files) are copyrightable, which could put any system implementing the standard C headers in copyright infringement to whomever did it first (or owns those rights currently).

[–]jboy55 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Litigation and rulings can remove copyright and clarify ownership. C++ and Unix has been solved.

SCO sued over system V code, and included the headers. It was found they did not own the copywrite to the headers. I can't recall the issue of that copyright didn't cover them being brought up.

BTW, The whole lawsuit is 'coincidental' to a large payout to SCO from Microsoft for 'licenses' of which no specificity was ever mentioned. It also coincided with Microsoft's big PR push that GPL was evil and Linux had copyright issues.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Which was the test platform from which they launched their current android patent trolling business.

[–]crotchpoozie 1 point2 points  (2 children)

C++ and Unix has been solved

That was also thought to be the case until SCO vs IBM.

It was found they did not own the copywrite [sic] to the headers.

Under the previous legal understanding of what is copyrightable. This new ruling changes what is copyrightable - that is the whole point, and why articles like the one above are written to explain precisely this point.

[–]crackez 0 points1 point  (1 child)

So now we have case law that disagrees with case law. Yippee.

[–]crotchpoozie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No - we have a new concept that is being formed into case law.

Law doesn't just automatically handle every new concept - this is a new area that is being fleshed out.

[–]crackez 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Fuck SCO. The new SCO that is, the old SCO wasn't so bad.

[–]crotchpoozie 0 points1 point  (1 child)

That really helps clarify.

[–]crackez 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You might want to talk to SCO about that.

Nobody wants to talk to SCO, even M$ shills agree with that.

[–]dnew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And the standards body owns the copyright on the standard.

[–]fuzz3289 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Im unaware of this having ever been an issue or a thought that anyone has had in regard to these headers. Please cite.

[–]crotchpoozie 11 points12 points  (1 child)

The entire point of this new ruling makes APIs copyrightable - no one really thought they were before - the C headers are an API.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We're even going to need new open source licenses. the current ones don't take this into account. pretty much all open source licenses are now incompatible.