Is this really true?
I would be very cautious of accepting any posting of having any
sort of legal relevance. You really have to go talk to a lawyer.
That aside:
>> However, whether it is copyrighted or patented may be irrelevant. By
>> using the license, you agree not to use non-open material from cited
>> works without permission, which does not rely on established rules of
>> copyright doctrine, but rather terms of a license.
Is this really true? A license may state a particular requirement, but
my understanding is that that doesn't make the requirement valid or
enforcable. In particular, can 'fair-use' of non-open material be prohibited
by a license agreement?
(I find curious the presumption that what is written or apparently agreed to is in
all cases binding. For example, and I've encountered this in real life, you
might sign a non-compete agreement with a two year term, but, generally
speaking, two years for such an agreement is non-enforcable and non-binding.
I've been told that the accepted reasonable period is more like three to six
months.)
Also, in the examples, the formulas may not be restrictable, but the content
that lays behind them may. In this case that content being the symbols and
their definitions.
T Bitonti