4 ms·

That only started to be true in 1988, when the US adopted the Berne Convention with its copyright law. In 1981 or 1983, anything without an explicit copyright

That only started to be true in 1988, when the US adopted the Berne Convention with its copyright law. In 1981 or 1983, anything without an explicit copyright declaration was considered public domain.

bbanyc 7y ago
I'm looking at the Gosmacs source right now, and just above the skull-and-bones warning it says "Copyright (c) 1981,1980 James Gosling" If nothing else, Gosling had a valid copyright. Mind you, there were no license terms on any file and it was distributed as source code.
- strenholme 7y ago
  Since Gosling never initiated legal proceedings against RMS, and since the statute of limitations for copyright is three to five years [1], the issue is moot today. [1] https://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/copyright_law/copyright_statute_limitations.htm https://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/copyright_l...
  - mikeeusa 7y ago
    >Since Gosling never initiated legal proceedings against RMS, and since the statute of limitations for copyright is three to five years [1], the issue is moot today. You are wrong on the law. An ongoing violation keep such a claim alive. The statute of limitations runs from the last violation (or; when a violation was discovered last (the circuits are split here)) A derivative work would be a violation, regardless of whether if "all the code was replaced": it would still be a derived work. So. If Gosling's claims in the video were true; and his copyright was proper; and there was not a clean-room reimplementation (by someone not having access to his source code) in GNU EMACS (if all this was true): Then: Current GNU EMACS would /still/ be in violation of Gosling's copyright. However, the facts are disputed as RMS' EMACS predates Goslings' in the record. It's like you're not even a lawyer. What do you do with your time strenholme? Make money for your wuuuhhmmann and "your" kids? Who rule over you.
kelnos 7y ago
My mistake, I had thought that happened in the 70s.

bbanyc 7y ago

I'm looking at the Gosmacs source right now, and just above the skull-and-bones warning it says "Copyright (c) 1981,1980 James Gosling" If nothing else, Gosling had a valid copyright. Mind you, there were no license terms on any file and it was distributed as source code.

strenholme 7y ago
Since Gosling never initiated legal proceedings against RMS, and since the statute of limitations for copyright is three to five years [1], the issue is moot today. [1] https://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/copyright_law/copyright_statute_limitations.htm https://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/copyright_l...
- mikeeusa 7y ago
  >Since Gosling never initiated legal proceedings against RMS, and since the statute of limitations for copyright is three to five years [1], the issue is moot today. You are wrong on the law. An ongoing violation keep such a claim alive. The statute of limitations runs from the last violation (or; when a violation was discovered last (the circuits are split here)) A derivative work would be a violation, regardless of whether if "all the code was replaced": it would still be a derived work. So. If Gosling's claims in the video were true; and his copyright was proper; and there was not a clean-room reimplementation (by someone not having access to his source code) in GNU EMACS (if all this was true): Then: Current GNU EMACS would /still/ be in violation of Gosling's copyright. However, the facts are disputed as RMS' EMACS predates Goslings' in the record. It's like you're not even a lawyer. What do you do with your time strenholme? Make money for your wuuuhhmmann and "your" kids? Who rule over you.

kelnos 7y ago

My mistake, I had thought that happened in the 70s.