Truth Social broke software rules, says copyleft group

Re:Truth Social broke software rules, says copyleft group by woodruffw on Friday October 22, 2021 @05:40PM (#28963093)

Your passwords and databases are probably not considered code, whereas a DSL that happens to be used for configuration would be.

But let's be clear: copyright holders get to decide when they enforce their copyrights. They aren't beholden to enforcement the way that trademark holders are. It's perfectly reasonable and legally consistent for a copyright holder to prioritize egregious violations (like TRUTH's) while ignoring smaller ones (like Joe Schmoe forgetting to publish his tuning changes).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Truth Social broke software rules, says copyleft group by randombits0 on Friday October 22, 2021 @10:31PM (#28965152)

That not withstanding, copyright applies only to that which is copyrightable. One may not express rights they do not have.

Portions modified may not be subject to any form of copyright protection if the original code and/or modifications are purely functional. Purely functional expressions that lack any creative element are not copyrightable to begin with.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Truth Social broke software rules, says copyleft group by woodruffw on Saturday October 23, 2021 @12:32AM (#28965739)

> Portions modified may not be subject to any form of copyright protection if the original code and/or modifications are purely functional. Purely functional expressions that lack any creative element are not copyrightable to begin with.

This is a more abstract observation than is perhaps relevant to the situation at hand, which involves a group of people modifying software components that the current body of software copyright law would not consider "purely functional."

[ Parent | on HN ]