RE: question about copyright and code, is this legal?

[Patrik Stridvall]

> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 23:07, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> > [correct summary of the law deleted]
> > As far as Wine is concerned though I can't think of
> > any Windows API that:
> > 1. Returns pure facts (not having any unique expression)
> > 2. Would fulfill the requirement of needed a significant
> >    effort to collect to collect the fact.
> >
> > So no I wouldn't worry about it as far as Wine is concerned.
>
> Unfortunately it appears there may be one: LCMapString. If 
> all the things we 
> have discovered about the tables are correct (and I am by no 
> means assuming 
> that they are), then the Microsoft sort key table meets the 
> industrious 
> collection requirements and returns facts in a way that could not be 
> duplicated without duplicating the table (it returns the 
> table entry in 
> literal form, so it couldn't even be represented as a 
> different table).

The significant effort requirement is for EACH fact seen by ITSELF.
For example if a make a database with the home and work addresses and
telephone numbers for every Wine contributor EACH fact seen by ITSELF
will take significant effort (at least on average) since they are
in most cases are not readily available.

In your example above anybody knowledgable in some language,
say Japanese, can easily determine the return values for
inputs involving their language for LCString AFAICS.

Futhermore the example I made above is what the law was designed
to protect so it is doubtful any court would even attempt to
extend it to your example. The intent of the lawmakers is VERY
important here in Sweden.
> This is what is (generally) returned by LCMapString. The 
> actual table is 
> included in an external file under NT (sortkey.nls), so one 
> option (likely 
> the best option) would be to implement LCMapString using a 
> standard table 
> from unicode.org, then provide a facility so that people in 
> the US and Canada 
> can (at their own risk of course) use the Microsoft versions 
> relying on 
> Feist.

In addition I doubt any court in Sweden would even try the case since the
facts in questions was intentionally published by Microsoft in the US
where the collection of facts was not protected because of Feist
and thus legally importable from there...

question about copyright and code, is this legal?

[Troy Rollo]

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 21:53, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> The significant effort requirement is for EACH fact seen by ITSELF.

This is certainly not the case in Australia, NZ and the UK.