Talk:Software copyright

message: Apart from copying and redistibuting someone else's work, how much of that work are you allowed to replicate in your own software.  For example, if someone wanted to program a word-like-software how much of the word features is he/she allowed to use as his own noting that he will program it from scratch.
:I expect you'd be interested in looking at Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., which addresses this very issue. 128.220.159.20 (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing an important point that many would like to know

message: I tagged this article as possibly NPOV because the first sentence is awkward:
:Software copyright, the relatively recent extension of copyright law to software, allowed a market for proprietary software to flourish for some time.
I would have expected a definition of software copyright and what is offered instead is a curious retrospective, wishful, unsupported claim about the alleged decline of proprietary software. Please help to make this article less NPOV. Cheers. --Edcolins 19:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
:I changed that sentence to read "has allowed", so it now does not suggest that the proprietary software market has dissipated. I've left the NPOV tag, though, until someone can look at the rest of the article more thoroughly. ArthurDenture 18:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is unlikely ever to be completely unbiased due to the complicated nature of the subject and the many points of view. This problem is exacerbated by the practice of posting the arguments against software copyright on a separate page, which are also tagged NPOV. Possibly a way to solve this would be simply to post a clear indication of this fact within the context of the page itself, as well as at the end of the article, which sometimes is not donePhil alias Harry 23:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I have checked this article for any inaccuracies and can now confirm that it is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.152.221 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly biased 

message: I've attempted to remove POV, clean up article and add more of world view.  OK to remove tags?--Nowa 01:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: This page will be revised over the next week as part of the
IP WikiProject. I intend to recast the overview in more descriptive terms, and then break the US section into subsections for history, rights retained by copyright holders, rights granted to others, etc.  Asrabkin (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed reorganization

message: stallman talks about it here: 
should that info be put somewhere? 89.216.192.218 (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  corporate conspiracy 

message: I think that much of this article is too US-centric.  The History section talks only about US law - and even assumes that the reader knows it's US law without mentioning it. Then later on, there's an Around the World section in which a few other countries get a mention, but once again the US is included.  As a minimum, the History section should be moved to the US section of Around the World.  Or maybe the article needs to be renamed Software copyright in the USA, with similar articles for other countries.
Mandolamus (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too US-centric 

message: Copyright Codex is a free treatise on U.S. copyright law. Its a reorganized and updated version of  Prof. Robert Gorman's Copyright Treatise for the Federal Judicial Center (also an excellent free reference). 
The Copyright Codex pages on Software Copyright Infringement and Copyright in Software Code could be useful references for this article.  
Copyright Codex is my own work, and I don't mean to be spammy. I'm just proposing it on the talk page, I'd never use it or link to it in any of my edits to the actual article. Teachingaway (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software Copyright Law References 

message: find new section serves  talk software copyrighte 
Nurhusien  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.73.53 (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  talk software copyright  

message: IANAL so I won't edit the page - but is East Germany still relevant now it has been reunited with the rest of the country, so is part of the EU? Number774 (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Germany???