Re: PathSearchAndQualify patch not applied?

Read my postings carefully.  Please don't argue points I did not make. 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Keef Aragon wrote:

> A patch is unique... if you change
> 
> int c = 0;
> to
> int c = -1;
> 
> That is unique - the patch itself is unique.Identified... copyright
> derivative work... not notional, legal.100% legal in court in front of
> a judge period and you don't seem to understand THAT.It doesn't matter
> if you charge money or not... your work is copyright end of story!And
> I question the notion that the GPL is a "game" or not a real license.
> In fact it's more clear and far more practical than the MS-EULA - and
> legally equally as credible.I think your misconstrued understanding of
> the law and linux development is what is not real world.You might do
> some research on this whole thing though.Your declaration is being
> challenged by judges and lawyers around theworld, as well as
> supported.But that is in the sense that some people feel that a
> license isn't real unless you make money on the product which it covers.

If you think you can legally stop TG from changing the particular line you 
are referring to in your patch to the corrected line you supply, by not 
granting them copyright, you are living in a very disturbing state of 
fantasy.

Please don't take my statements about a patch and generalize them to all 
code, everywhere.  And money is not a defining condition.  However, when 
real money is not used things will tend to take the form of a game.

Judges and lawyers in the real world are dealing with real world issues.  
Your beliefs surrounding the patch in the example above may bear some 
resemblance to these real world issues.  Just don't try to make a case out 
of the above example patch.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
                                                                                
> Nadav Frum wrote:
> > You still don't understand.You can hold copyright over something if
> > and only if it is unique in some way.
>
> And a patch IS.Nobody else has used those lines of code, in that
> sequence, in those places, in the program before.
>
> > If you cannot identify anything in your patch that is unique and
> > yours,
>
> As I said last time:THE LINES OF CODE THAT THE PATCH INSERTS.  The
> person who wrote the patch created those lines, so under Berne
> Convention copyright law, they are theirs.If the code had already been
> in the program, it wouldn't be in the patch, so those lines are also
> unique.
>
> You obviously don't understand something about the definition of a
> "work", so this is going to be just about all I'll say on this.If you
> still refuse to understand it, then I guess it's going to be your
> problem.

You have not identified what is unique about your patch.  In particular:
1. The place is dependent on the location of the bug and so is not 
   entirely your doing.
2. White space can be added and removed.  Names can be changed.  The 
   sequence can be altered in places where it does not affect the logic
   of the algorithm.
3. The program is not yours and is continuously in a state of change.  
   A particular change may be an imperative and you cannot usurp the right
   to implement that change.

Where does your copyright begin and where does it end?

Nadav Frum
----------