3 ms·

Yeah, it's not like they could copyright the ELF format anyway, only that particular description, or any particular implementation they had. Pretty much everyon

Yeah, it's not like they could copyright the ELF format anyway, only that particular description, or any particular implementation they had. Pretty much everyone seems to agree that file formats themselves aren't copyrightable expression, though I have trouble finding any U.S. case law to that effect. (Personally, that makes me a bit uneasy: for instance, if the copyrighted spec lists the file sections in a certain order, and your implementation happens to output them in the same order even if it doesn't have to, then have you infringed on the owner's copyright of that particular arrangement?) Meanwhile, they could have gotten a patent on (some parts of) the format, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Veserv 2y ago
The rule in general (not just for software) is that patents are for functional elements where as copyrights are for non-functional elements; they are exclusive, a element can only be patentable or copyrightable, not both. If it is necessary for operation or inter-operation [1] then they can probably not enforce copyright or trademark. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade
- LegionMammal978 2y ago
  Sure, but usually in any file format, an encoder has some choice in how to produce its output, with no functional difference either way. For instance, different PNG encoders might include the necessary chunks in a different order in the file. And my concern is that some such choices, if they align with choices described in the copyrighted spec, might be protectable as a creative arrangement or similar. (E.g., a spec might list the chunks in such an order that their names form a creative acronym.) Of course, the defense against this would be to scramble (or normalize) all non-functional choices compared to anything in the spec. But you have to be careful to make sure there's nothing left of the spec's non-functional influence. At least Oracle v. Google appears to provide some ammunition here in favor of implementers: the court found the transformative use in that case enough to trump even the byte-for-byte copying of the API signatures. So perhaps interoperability could similarly trump such non-functional copying from the spec. But overall, it's still on shakier ground than I'd like.
MaskRay 2y ago
I feel that The SCO Group's role in the evolution of the System V ABI seems to have been more of a curator/editor than an innovator, inheriting the System V ABI from previous entities. Given that the Tool Interface Standard (TIS) Committee has essentially released the ELF-related chapters into the public domain, and others have made changes, it's unclear what specific rights The SCO Group (and now Xinuos) could claim to reserve. (That said, their maintenance work needs to be remembered.)

Veserv 2y ago

The rule in general (not just for software) is that patents are for functional elements where as copyrights are for non-functional elements; they are exclusive, a element can only be patentable or copyrightable, not both. If it is necessary for operation or inter-operation [1] then they can probably not enforce copyright or trademark. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade

LegionMammal978 2y ago
Sure, but usually in any file format, an encoder has some choice in how to produce its output, with no functional difference either way. For instance, different PNG encoders might include the necessary chunks in a different order in the file. And my concern is that some such choices, if they align with choices described in the copyrighted spec, might be protectable as a creative arrangement or similar. (E.g., a spec might list the chunks in such an order that their names form a creative acronym.) Of course, the defense against this would be to scramble (or normalize) all non-functional choices compared to anything in the spec. But you have to be careful to make sure there's nothing left of the spec's non-functional influence. At least Oracle v. Google appears to provide some ammunition here in favor of implementers: the court found the transformative use in that case enough to trump even the byte-for-byte copying of the API signatures. So perhaps interoperability could similarly trump such non-functional copying from the spec. But overall, it's still on shakier ground than I'd like.

MaskRay 2y ago

I feel that The SCO Group's role in the evolution of the System V ABI seems to have been more of a curator/editor than an innovator, inheriting the System V ABI from previous entities. Given that the Tool Interface Standard (TIS) Committee has essentially released the ELF-related chapters into the public domain, and others have made changes, it's unclear what specific rights The SCO Group (and now Xinuos) could claim to reserve. (That said, their maintenance work needs to be remembered.)