3 ms·

> 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

> 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

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.