Re: changes made/thanks (re hardware designs) (fwd)

[Graham Seaman <graham@collector.hscs.wmin.ac.uk>]

I am forwarding this to the list in spite of Richard's comment
below since there has been no other discussion in the meantime.
As before, he is not subscribed to the list - fix the mail header
yourself if you send any reply for him to see!

Graham


Forwarded message:
> From rms@gnu.org  Wed Nov 24 16:36:16 1999
> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 09:25:01 -0700 (MST)
> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> 
 I am not sending this to hardlicense-discuss because of the long
 delay.  I am not sure whether it is useful or just distracting to send
 it there after so long.
> 
>       The CD with an executable
>     > program is copyrightable and therefore is covered by copyright.  The
>     > physical hardware is not.
> 
>     I'm afraid I don't understand either the full meaning or the consequences
>     of this.
> 
>     1) Is the CD covered by a separate copyright from the copyright applied
>     to the separate programs it contains (eg as a collection organised in a 
>     particular way)? 
> 
 It can be; in general collections of copyrighted works can be covered
 by a compilation copyright.  But that is a side issue, and it is not
 what I was talking about.
 
 I was referring simply to the fact that the material on the CD is a
 kind of material that copyright can apply to, and therefore does.  A
 piece of physical circuitry is not, in general, something that
 copyright can apply to.
 
 So if the material on the CD was copied, it could be copyright
 infringement.  However, the physical circuitry cannot infringe any
 copyright.  It is outside the domain of copyright.  Copyright law
 simply has nothing to say about it.
 
 Hence, the analogy the physical circuitry with a CD containing an
 executable of a program is a very bad choice for understanding the
 consequences of copyright law.
> 
>     2) One result of licensing free designs that I would like to see is that
>     if a manufacturer uses a free design for manufacture of a part, when that
>     part is distributed the license constrains him to provide a pointer to
>     the design used. I saw this as a constraint on the use of the schematic,
>     HDL file etc. Is it actually a constraint on the physical hardware and
>     so unenforceable?
> 
 Based on my understanding, that would be unenforcible,
 for that reason.