4 ms·
Derivative work of a commercial product. Briefly mentions the FAIR USE Act of 2007, but that act never passed. Author is more or less banking on the fact that t
by EarlKing 4y ago
Derivative work of a commercial product. Briefly mentions the FAIR USE Act of 2007, but that act never passed. Author is more or less banking on the fact that the company went bankrupt so who knows who owns the rights nowadays. Shouldn't impact anyone since it's basically just a curiosity, but just FYI.
- JKCalhoun 4y agoSo the legally-unrecognized "abandonware" concept. (EDIT: author refers to it as abandonware.)
- EarlKing 4y agoWorse than that it's Abandonware with extra steps. He tries to justify it by pointing to the FAIR USE Act which as I noted never passed. What's worse is that the amendments to the DMCA proposed in that act have nothing to do with what he's doing. Shouldn't really be an issue for someone who just wants a fun toy to play with, but anyone touching this should go in with full knowledge.
- userbinator 4y agoAFAIK this is just one (of many) implementation of formant synthesis, which I believe has a lot of prior art and little novelty by now. I wonder if there's active patents on this one?
- EarlKing 4y agoFor this particular implementation there shouldn't be since it is quite literally a disassembly of a product from the 1980s that was then translated to C. However, none of that matters as we're talking about copyright and the literal copying of the protectable expressions that constitute that work, not patents.