6 ms·

They did not copy the implementation, they copied the general idea of what the algorithm should do. Do not go down this line of reasoning, otherwise we will be

by fridif 5y ago

They did not copy the implementation, they copied the general idea of what the algorithm should do. Do not go down this line of reasoning, otherwise we will be copyrighting the concept of for loops.

modeless 5y ago
> They did not copy the implementation, they copied the general idea of what the algorithm should do [Citation needed]
- fridif 5y ago
  If you wrote an algorithm in the early 80s that did x+y+z And then I saw your source code and in the late 80s I changed the variable names, function name, and logic to be x+y+z+0.1 And then I told my friend John that there's a super cool algorithm that adds numbers together, and he made some more changes to it and compiled it for a different platform... Has anybody broken the law in your mind? EDIT: because it would seem that the original authors (among them Cleve Moler) don't have any issue with what transpired
  - hnfong 5y ago
    The GP's argument is that you don't have evidence that they didn't copy the whole function verbatim. Is there a source that said they changed variable and function names and modified the logic? > because it would seem that the original authors (among them Cleve Moler) don't have any issue with what transpired Yet. Without an explicit license there is no basis to release it under the GPL (if the code was copied verbatim or had insufficient re-writing). What if the heirs of the copyright owner wanted to assert their rights? Is there a doctrine that if you don't assert your rights you lose them? (Presumably applies to trademarks, but I don't think this is the case for copyrights)
    - fridif 5y ago
      The source code in question is over 40 years old and most likely doesn't exist anymore in its original form. What do we do then? The burden of proof for infringement is on original authors, and they haven't done so for 40 years. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, Britain had to take measure to prevent visiting Americans and others from memorizing the designs of their new high tech machinery like the steam engine and the power loom. Where do we draw the line? Shut down the internet until we create a massive copyright detection firewall? No, we live with the copying and constantly evolve and adapt our business. Death to all patent trolls.
      - hnfong 5y ago
        > Where do we draw the line? I won't even claim that people must necessarily follow the law. Copyright law is inconsistent at best, and notoriously hard to follow to the letter (and often ridiculous). In practice lawyers assess the legal risk and weigh the outcomes. I never intended to discuss what we should do, and I definitely did not propose shutting down the internet... The original discussion was such: > > They did not copy the implementation, they copied the general idea of what the algorithm should do > [Citation needed] You said the original authors did not complain, which is neither here nor there, as I pointed out. There is still some theoretical legal risk if you copy with the owner's knowledge but not express consent. The fact that the burden of proof is on the authors is true but that they have not brought a claim does not mean they cannot prove infringement. And in case I haven't made it clear, I don't think it's a bad idea to assume the function is under GPL, I just don't think there's a basis for claiming what you originally claimed, and there is still some level of (probably acceptable) risk if you take the purported license of source code as-is.
        fridif 5y ago
        How do we obtain the source code to verify it wasnt infringed upon?
- a1369209993 5y ago
  > > They did not copy the implementation, they copied the general idea of what the algorithm should do > [Citation needed] (Not really your point, as such, but) no, actually, if you claim they did something (nominally[0]) wrong, the onus is on you to provide citations showing they did it[1]. 0: > From an IP absolutist standpoint 1: Well, or that they (voluntarily and explicitly) accepted some responsibility (such as a job as a police officer) that entails a higher level of scrutiny than innocent-until-proven-guilty, but that's not really relevant here.
dahart 5y ago
> they copied the general idea of what the algorithms should do. Do not go down this line of reasoning Too late, patents pick up where copyright ends, to protect general algorithmic ideas, not just implementations. And we have lots of patents on things that seem trivial now, including for-loops (just see how many patents depend on “a multiplicity”). Look - here’s a helpful lawyer’s template for including for-loops as a claim in your own patents: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/recursive-and-iterative-algorithms-patent-claims https://www.natlawreview.com/article/recursive-and-iterative... Another example is the famous XOR patent https://patents.google.com/patent/US4197590/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US4197590/en EFF keeps a blog on stupid patents https://www.eff.org/issues/stupid-patent-month https://www.eff.org/issues/stupid-patent-month
- fridif 5y ago
  Anyone who believes in a free and open society should do away with all copyrights and patents. Anyone who thinks that licensing will have an effect on what is happening in reality is severely misguided.
  - dahart 5y ago
    > Anyone who believes in a free and open society should do away with all copyrights and patents. Free and open sound good to me! What do they mean exactly? I guess it’s a non-debatable fact that copyrights and patents are abused by many big companies and patent trolls, but doing away with the system does seem extreme, it has also protected deserving individuals on occasion, no? You are saying that it should always be legal to copy someone else’s code / inventions without giving them any credit or compensation? > Anyone who thinks that licensing will have an effect on what is happening in reality is severely misguided. I’m not sure I understand what you mean; lots of licensing activity does have a measurable effect on reality. This article is only a small example, but people get sued all the time over taking code and using it without licensing it.
- bdowling 5y ago
  > Look - here’s a helpful lawyer’s template for including for-loops as a claim in your own patents: A claim on a combination of elements in which one element is an iterative component is not the same as claim on all iterative components everywhere.

by fridif 5y ago

They did not copy the implementation, they copied the general idea of what the algorithm should do. Do not go down this line of reasoning, otherwise we will be copyrighting the concept of for loops.

modeless 5y ago

> They did not copy the implementation, they copied the general idea of what the algorithm should do [Citation needed]

fridif 5y ago
If you wrote an algorithm in the early 80s that did x+y+z And then I saw your source code and in the late 80s I changed the variable names, function name, and logic to be x+y+z+0.1 And then I told my friend John that there's a super cool algorithm that adds numbers together, and he made some more changes to it and compiled it for a different platform... Has anybody broken the law in your mind? EDIT: because it would seem that the original authors (among them Cleve Moler) don't have any issue with what transpired
- hnfong 5y ago
  The GP's argument is that you don't have evidence that they didn't copy the whole function verbatim. Is there a source that said they changed variable and function names and modified the logic? > because it would seem that the original authors (among them Cleve Moler) don't have any issue with what transpired Yet. Without an explicit license there is no basis to release it under the GPL (if the code was copied verbatim or had insufficient re-writing). What if the heirs of the copyright owner wanted to assert their rights? Is there a doctrine that if you don't assert your rights you lose them? (Presumably applies to trademarks, but I don't think this is the case for copyrights)
  - fridif 5y ago
    The source code in question is over 40 years old and most likely doesn't exist anymore in its original form. What do we do then? The burden of proof for infringement is on original authors, and they haven't done so for 40 years. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, Britain had to take measure to prevent visiting Americans and others from memorizing the designs of their new high tech machinery like the steam engine and the power loom. Where do we draw the line? Shut down the internet until we create a massive copyright detection firewall? No, we live with the copying and constantly evolve and adapt our business. Death to all patent trolls.
    - hnfong 5y ago
      > Where do we draw the line? I won't even claim that people must necessarily follow the law. Copyright law is inconsistent at best, and notoriously hard to follow to the letter (and often ridiculous). In practice lawyers assess the legal risk and weigh the outcomes. I never intended to discuss what we should do, and I definitely did not propose shutting down the internet... The original discussion was such: > > They did not copy the implementation, they copied the general idea of what the algorithm should do > [Citation needed] You said the original authors did not complain, which is neither here nor there, as I pointed out. There is still some theoretical legal risk if you copy with the owner's knowledge but not express consent. The fact that the burden of proof is on the authors is true but that they have not brought a claim does not mean they cannot prove infringement. And in case I haven't made it clear, I don't think it's a bad idea to assume the function is under GPL, I just don't think there's a basis for claiming what you originally claimed, and there is still some level of (probably acceptable) risk if you take the purported license of source code as-is.
      - fridif 5y ago
        How do we obtain the source code to verify it wasnt infringed upon?
a1369209993 5y ago
> > They did not copy the implementation, they copied the general idea of what the algorithm should do > [Citation needed] (Not really your point, as such, but) no, actually, if you claim they did something (nominally[0]) wrong, the onus is on you to provide citations showing they did it[1]. 0: > From an IP absolutist standpoint 1: Well, or that they (voluntarily and explicitly) accepted some responsibility (such as a job as a police officer) that entails a higher level of scrutiny than innocent-until-proven-guilty, but that's not really relevant here.

dahart 5y ago

> they copied the general idea of what the algorithms should do. Do not go down this line of reasoning Too late, patents pick up where copyright ends, to protect general algorithmic ideas, not just implementations. And we have lots of patents on things that seem trivial now, including for-loops (just see how many patents depend on “a multiplicity”). Look - here’s a helpful lawyer’s template for including for-loops as a claim in your own patents: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/recursive-and-iterative-algorithms-patent-claims https://www.natlawreview.com/article/recursive-and-iterative... Another example is the famous XOR patent https://patents.google.com/patent/US4197590/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US4197590/en EFF keeps a blog on stupid patents https://www.eff.org/issues/stupid-patent-month https://www.eff.org/issues/stupid-patent-month

fridif 5y ago
Anyone who believes in a free and open society should do away with all copyrights and patents. Anyone who thinks that licensing will have an effect on what is happening in reality is severely misguided.
- dahart 5y ago
  > Anyone who believes in a free and open society should do away with all copyrights and patents. Free and open sound good to me! What do they mean exactly? I guess it’s a non-debatable fact that copyrights and patents are abused by many big companies and patent trolls, but doing away with the system does seem extreme, it has also protected deserving individuals on occasion, no? You are saying that it should always be legal to copy someone else’s code / inventions without giving them any credit or compensation? > Anyone who thinks that licensing will have an effect on what is happening in reality is severely misguided. I’m not sure I understand what you mean; lots of licensing activity does have a measurable effect on reality. This article is only a small example, but people get sued all the time over taking code and using it without licensing it.
bdowling 5y ago
> Look - here’s a helpful lawyer’s template for including for-loops as a claim in your own patents: A claim on a combination of elements in which one element is an iterative component is not the same as claim on all iterative components everywhere.