Re: [ossig] Copyright Laws

["Raja Iskandar Shah" <ris.riscniaga@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

uwe, sorry, i replied to your email, instead of the ossig. anyway, here
it is again. also, i would agree with dinesh, in saying that software
innovation still has hope in malaysia.

>
> a simple example:
> in 1990, i release a software product with 4 modules.
> on 1 jan 1995, someone claims ownership of 1 module. being a small
> timebusiness, i immediately stop producing.
> on 2 jan 1995, someone else releases a software with my other 3
> modules.
> by law, i still am the copyright owner of that other 3 modules,
> and i
> can ask the other guy to stop.
>
> Exactly. This is why I raised the 'fruit'. (No idea how this is
> called in
> proper English, though.) And this is what I meant: you can't reap
> anythingfrom 4 modules if one isn't yours.


my understanding of the malaysian copyright law says that, my product
with 4 modules is still protected by copyright. however because 1 module
is claimed by someone else, does not annul my copyright, i still have
ownership over the other 3 modules, except that my total product is now
infringing on someone else's copyright. so i cannot sell my product with
the 4 modules, but i can still sell my 3 modules.

this is the basic principle of copyright law (at least in malaysia). and
very important, in this age of patenting business processes - which is
ridiculous and a real killer to innovation.

patents are a different kind of ownership protection. with patents, you
need to officially register the 'blueprints'. at the very early stage of
patents, it covered scientific / engineering works. at one point of
time, there were arguements, whether software should be protected by
patent or copyright laws. eventually, software came under copyright
laws, along with literary works.

an important point with copyright laws is that you are allowed to
reverse engineer the output from copyright works (translations are
disallowed). this is the principle that allows openoffice.org to figure
out a way to read microsoft office documents / spreadsheet. so some kind
of innovation is still allowed through copyright laws. there is hope yet
for the malaysian software industry.

technically, under copyright laws you can produce your own version of
the shrek movie but you cannot use the same script / lines. plus the
names and characters are trademarks (another different kind of law),
except snow white, pinnochio, cinderella - which is now public (i
think). but you can still have a movie about a big monster and a smart
talking animal and other fairy tale characters.

however, if software had come under patent laws, and microsoft had
patented the excel spreadsheet. openoffice.org would probably be
prevented from reading excel spreadsheets. currently, the main problem
that the software industry has is with patent laws. almost every week,
there is a patent owner suing a software / technology company. example,
one-click, plug-ins, fat32, animated gif, etc.

if sco had patented unix, linux would be totally screwed. fortunately,
the copyright law prevails, so sco has got to prove that linux copied
from unix source codes and derived works from that. just because linux
works like unix, is not a basis for copyright infringement.

however, we have now got problems with people patenting business
processes. if this trend of patenting business processes continues,
everything will eventually belong to mba consultants ! just draw a few
boxes and lines, patent it, and suddenly the whole world belongs to
them. very frightening.

malaysia in particular has been at the losing end of patents. some of
those trees in our own forest is now actually owned by some foreign
corporation. these people have patented part of the genetic blueprints
of our indigenous plants. so this whole patenting business is now even
threatening malaysia's sovereignty - we are now even restricted from
exploiting our own natural resources.

the former pm recognised that this was a problem and putting developing
countries at a severe disadvantage. but when it came to the ministry,
the result was: encourage people to have more patents. the current
patent concept is already flawed, and now we have a govt that is
encouraging a flawed concept. perhaps, the authority (mipc) should be
moved from mdtca to mosti, who might have a better understanding.

on a personal note, i do not agree with the gpl license ( the reason why
i try to avoid development on mysql, linux distros, etc). the gpl
license mixes between ownership and license. it is great for making sure
that the original software is forever free, but complicate matters for
commercial developers. the sun public license is supposedly worse.

that is why i like the firebird sql product which is licensed under the
interbase public license, a variant of the mozilla public license. the
license talks about original code, covered code, larger works,
modifications, etc. it expressly allows, developers to create original
files in the source codes, and license the new file in any manner. so
the developer still has some ownership control over his own original
codes, such as api, dll and any other add-ons.

Quote from the Interbase Public License:

1.9. ''Modifications'' means any addition to or deletion from the
substance or structure of either the Original Code or any previous
Modifications. When Covered Code is released as a series of files, a
Modification is:

A. Any addition to or deletion from the contents of a file containing
Original Code or previous Modifications.

B. Any new file that contains any part of the Original Code or previous
Modifications.

in essence, if my new source code file contains my original codes, then
i can license that portion in any manner that i deem fit. this applies,
even if my new file must be compiled in a single executable binary with
the rest of the original codes. when i distribute the binary, i only
need to make available the original codes, without my codes (if my
license is proprietary).

if you look at php, php3 was under gpl, but php4 is now under php
license, a variant of the apache license. basically, it covers only the
covered codes, and you can redistribute in binary form only. the initial
contributor can do this as they own the source codes.

if everyone is sufficiently confused, i shall now end my comments. i
need to work on my gpl / php / eula / mpl / interbase licensed software.
all my software are legally licensed.

all of the normal 'consultant' disclaimers apply. thank god i don't live
in the usa (just joking, no offence).

i think this thread is becoming beyond 'geek'iness.




Raja Iskandar Shah
http://riscniaga.netfirms.com

----- Original Message -----
From: Colin Charles <byte@aeon.com.my>
Date: Thursday, May 27, 2004 9:59 pm
Subject: [ossig] My-OpenContent

> Interested in open content (a loose term, nonetheless) and moreover
> interested in discussing it in the Malaysian scene and pushing it
> further?
> 
> We have a mailing list:
>    http://lists.asiaosc.org/mailman/listinfo/my-opencontent
> 
> Come join us, and let discussion take off
> 
> Regards
> -- 
> Colin Charles, byte@aeon.com.my
> http://www.bytebot.net/
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe: send mail to ossig-request@mncc.com.my
> with "unsubscribe ossig" in the body of the message
> 
> 
begin:vcard
n:Shah;Raja Iskandar
fn:Raja Iskandar Shah
url:http://riscniaga.netfirms.com
org:RISC Niaga Enterprise;
version:2.1
email;internet:ris.riscniaga@time.net.my
end:vcard