[cc-community] The Question of Manufacturing Copyleft

Terry Hancock hancock at anansispaceworks.com
Wed Oct 31 09:58:50 EST 2007


Greg London wrote:
> I'm an electrical engineer doing ASIC design.

Thanks for the excellent reply! I'm going to have to read it a few times
 through before replying more broadly, but here's one point I have to
follow up on:

> Once you perform the conversion from verilog code
> to an ASIC, you are converting from expression to
> functionality. And copyright doesn't protect this
> functionality any more than it protects the functionality
> of your 16 bit counter.

While it's clear that the *function* "16 bit counter" is not
copyrightable, the actual ASIC is more than that -- it is a *specific*
counter made to a *specific* design. And it is that specificity that
we'd wish to protect.

For comparison, a *book* is a printed object, composed of ink and paper,
which has the *function* of (say) communicating "an adventure novel" or
perhaps "How to use Drupal". Certainly, that goal can be taken on by
another book without copyright restrictions.

But if the works are the *specific* expressions "Treasure Island" or
"Building Online Communities with Drupal, PHP BB, and Wordpress" which
implement the "adventure" and "drupal" *functions*, then copyright
certainly does apply.

But it is the abstract notion of "textual information" which the book
conveys that falls under copyright -- embodied in a particular
arrangement of ink on the page. Just like the particular arrangements
you find in masks for semiconductor or PCB etching. IOW, even a book is
simply a "manufactured object" -- but it contains a copyrightable
expression. ISTM that other manufactured objects may well contain such
expressions, even if they are basically utilitarian in purpose --
provided that there is an adequate level of creativity in the design.

Of course, it is not the actual objects that we wish to control the use
of -- it is the *masters* used to make the objects. In order to *derive*
from our *original design* and then make copies from it, there must be a
*derivative design* that is created in the process. But while it must be
created, it most likely will not be published -- more likely, the
manufacturer will simply *use* it to make objects which they can then sell.

Now we're perfectly fine with the selling of the objects. But we want
that to carry a requirement of publishing the *derivative design* from
which they were made, such that anyone who buys those objects can get it.

Actually, we have some rather fine definitions about how far that
copyleft requirement *should* go -- but I'm still trying to figure out
how far it *could* go legally.

Cheers,
Terry


-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com



More information about the cc-community mailing list