Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Saturday 19 March 2005 06:44 pm, Greg London wrote:
> Rob Myers said:
> > On the copyrightability of circuits (but are chips circuits?):
> >
> > http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1996-02/0251.html
>
> Finally got to peruse your links.
> This one had a lot of round and round until the end when
>
> someone pinged a lawyer who straightened them out:
> :Although the circuit boards'
> :plans are probably protected by copyright, the copyright is weak,
> :because the boards are useful articles under section 101, and copyright
> :does not protect industrial design.  Even if the plans are protected,
> :they are protected only in their aesthetic aspects, and then only to
> :the extent that their aesthetic aspects are separable from their
> :utilitarian aspects (see section 101's definition of "pictorial,
> :graphic, and sculptural works").  Since the boards' layouts are
> :probably dictated solely by function, and not by aesthetics, copyright
> :protection is likely to be weak or nonexistent. Unlike architecture
> :(before the 1990 Act), circuit boards are not designed for aesthetic
> :viewing.
> :
> :Dr. Dratler
> :William S. Richardson School of Law
> :University of Hawaii
>
> Chip layout would be dictated solely by function, not aesthetics,
> so in answer to your question "are chips circuits?", I would
> guess that they are treated similarly.
>
> Which would mean that copyright no longer applies when you
> convert an opencore.org piece of code into silicon.
>
> I actually prefer the separation. Having hardware copyrights
> would be about as bad as allowing software patents, and it's
> bad enough having software patents.
>
Not that I disagree with the analysis or the intention behind it... but...

binaries are a functional strin of 1s and 0s and yet aren't they considered a 
copyrighted derivative of the copyrighted source they came from.

Is this just another special exception to the rules?

all the best,

drew