4 ms·

Reading GPL'ed code and reimplementing it makes a good case for why the rewrite should also be GPL'ed. I don't know if they did this here, but if so, they shoul

by jordigh 11y ago

Reading GPL'ed code and reimplementing it makes a good case for why the rewrite should also be GPL'ed. I don't know if they did this here, but if so, they should GPL their version as well. For GNU Octave, we stress very strongly that anyone who has read Matlab's source code is ineligible to contribute to Octave. This is because, should it ever come down to it, we want to be able to ascertain that our implementation is completely original, because nobody has read Matlab's source code. In a similar vein, I'm still waiting[1] for someone to implement the medcouple for Python's statsmodels, because I cannot do it myself. -- [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/pystatsmodels/LpsmIJPWHY8 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/pystatsmodels/LpsmIJ...

frutiger 11y ago
> This is because, should it ever come down to it, we want to be able to ascertain that our implementation is completely original I appreciate that this is how it works today, but isn't that a completely outrageous idea? A well read, well travelled person will have seen countless things that will influence their future behaviours. It is not uncommon to completely forget a particular source of inspiration (sometimes we falsely attribute to someone else, and even other times we attribute it to ourselves!)
- jahewson 11y ago
  Yes, it is. This is an excessive level of caution which does not reflect the permissiveness of actual copyright law. However, there is the concept of "unintentional copying", which is effectively what you're describing, and which is still considered an infringement under copyright law, however it's very, very unlikely that such an argument would be used in court with regards to software, and even more unlikely that a jury would be convinced by it. It's really more of an argument for subjective and creative endeavours, such as hearing a music clip or seeing a logo design or piece of art, which leaves a strong impression. Lawyers tend to fuel the FUD around this with "best practice" concepts such as "clean room", which is a drastic overreaction. It's akin to saying "if you want to be an author you should never read any books, in case you accidentally copy one of them". Sigh.
  - jordigh 11y ago
    A further complication for us is that the Mathworks is rich and amoral while GNU Octave is tiny and idealistic. If we ever become large enough for them to notice us, we have to make sure that we never give them the slightest argument in their favour. Should our code ever end up looking similar (similar variable names, similar structure), we have to be able to say that it's purely coincidental.
    - jahewson 11y ago
      That's a fine reason for going the extra mile to protect yourself against a hostile adversary but understand that it really is "the extra mile". While it may be prudent in your situation, it is heavy-handed and unnecessary in general.
jahewson 11y ago
Nope, just as reading non-GPL'd code and then writing a GPL'd version is legitimate, so too is reading GPL'd code and writing a non-GPL'd version. As long as you're not literally copying and pasting the code. While you're free to invent any contribution rules you like for Octave, there's really no need for such drastic measures. It might give you a nice piece of mind, but it's not legally necessary - it's perfectly possible for someone who has read the Matlab source code to contribute to your project without copying anything. You'd just rather not have to think about it, which a is pragmatic, but heavy-handed restriction.
- jordigh 11y ago
  Are you a lawyer? Because other lawyers have told me otherwise. Would you happen to know of cases where your interpretation has been upheld?
  - jahewson 11y ago
    Of course I can read something and not copy it. I can read a book and not copy it. I can listen to a song and not copy it. I can look at art and not copy it. And I can read source code and not copy it. It's not surprising that your lawyer implied otherwise, as its "best practice" to guard against every feasible risk, no matter how unlikely. Understand that your lawyer is protecting you against a hyper-zealous misinterpretation of the law, not the actual law.
    - ehaughee 11y ago
      Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the original point here is not whether someone read the code and then contributed, but whether their contribution might (inadvertently or otherwise) contain Matlab intellectual property because they have been exposed to it. It seems a reasonable safeguard to prohibit those who have seen the source code from potentially contributing in a troublesome manner.
      - jahewson 11y ago

by jordigh 11y ago

frutiger 11y ago

> This is because, should it ever come down to it, we want to be able to ascertain that our implementation is completely original I appreciate that this is how it works today, but isn't that a completely outrageous idea? A well read, well travelled person will have seen countless things that will influence their future behaviours. It is not uncommon to completely forget a particular source of inspiration (sometimes we falsely attribute to someone else, and even other times we attribute it to ourselves!)

jahewson 11y ago
Yes, it is. This is an excessive level of caution which does not reflect the permissiveness of actual copyright law. However, there is the concept of "unintentional copying", which is effectively what you're describing, and which is still considered an infringement under copyright law, however it's very, very unlikely that such an argument would be used in court with regards to software, and even more unlikely that a jury would be convinced by it. It's really more of an argument for subjective and creative endeavours, such as hearing a music clip or seeing a logo design or piece of art, which leaves a strong impression. Lawyers tend to fuel the FUD around this with "best practice" concepts such as "clean room", which is a drastic overreaction. It's akin to saying "if you want to be an author you should never read any books, in case you accidentally copy one of them". Sigh.
- jordigh 11y ago
  A further complication for us is that the Mathworks is rich and amoral while GNU Octave is tiny and idealistic. If we ever become large enough for them to notice us, we have to make sure that we never give them the slightest argument in their favour. Should our code ever end up looking similar (similar variable names, similar structure), we have to be able to say that it's purely coincidental.
  - jahewson 11y ago
    That's a fine reason for going the extra mile to protect yourself against a hostile adversary but understand that it really is "the extra mile". While it may be prudent in your situation, it is heavy-handed and unnecessary in general.

jahewson 11y ago

Nope, just as reading non-GPL'd code and then writing a GPL'd version is legitimate, so too is reading GPL'd code and writing a non-GPL'd version. As long as you're not literally copying and pasting the code. While you're free to invent any contribution rules you like for Octave, there's really no need for such drastic measures. It might give you a nice piece of mind, but it's not legally necessary - it's perfectly possible for someone who has read the Matlab source code to contribute to your project without copying anything. You'd just rather not have to think about it, which a is pragmatic, but heavy-handed restriction.

jordigh 11y ago
Are you a lawyer? Because other lawyers have told me otherwise. Would you happen to know of cases where your interpretation has been upheld?
- jahewson 11y ago
  Of course I can read something and not copy it. I can read a book and not copy it. I can listen to a song and not copy it. I can look at art and not copy it. And I can read source code and not copy it. It's not surprising that your lawyer implied otherwise, as its "best practice" to guard against every feasible risk, no matter how unlikely. Understand that your lawyer is protecting you against a hyper-zealous misinterpretation of the law, not the actual law.
  - ehaughee 11y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the original point here is not whether someone read the code and then contributed, but whether their contribution might (inadvertently or otherwise) contain Matlab intellectual property because they have been exposed to it. It seems a reasonable safeguard to prohibit those who have seen the source code from potentially contributing in a troublesome manner.
    - jahewson 11y ago