5 ms·

First off, "open source" does not typically mean free of any kind of restrictions, and that is the entire point of this debate. So "source available" becomes e

• spywaregorilla 5y ago
  By open source in this context I mean totally open with no requirements, including attribution. > Think about what would happen if this is applied to everything. Anything being available becomes free of restrictions. Then all books published become openly available for anyone to copy or print. Even compiled software becomes free of restrictions, which anyone can copy freely. This is basically demise of copyright laws itself, which would be disasterous. I think standards for code should be different from art. They're different concepts. Art you want to protect a specific expression. Code you want to protect the output of an expression. Everyone's talking about how this tool spits out code verbatim, but who cares? What if my tool spits out your python2 code in python3 code? What if it also just fluffs it a little to read differently but perform similarly. It doesn't need to do this explicitly either, it can just guarantee that no outputted code matches an original work exactly but get to the same place. I can make the code substantially different, while keeping the output exactly the same. But we don't get anywhere but generating continuously obtuse implementations of the same thing for stylistic differences. Functionality isn't copyrightable for good reason. edit: and the example of rewriting the code in a different language in a different style probably still is technically copyright violation, but it'll be extremely difficult to win that trial in case, and thus is a stupid rule.
  • alok-g 5y ago
    I would like to brainstorm more on this. Perhaps offline would make more sense. I agree that for code, the function is more important than form. The "ideas" behind the function are protected by patents, not copyrights as you recognize already. If there are no inventive steps involved, then of course, patents do not come into picture and the function sees no protection, only the expression (form) part does. I do think there is creative expression involved in writing code as well, however, I need to understand your point better. Code is just being written in a programming language, whereas a prose/poem is written in a natural language. Both can involve creative expression. I would like to hear more about how exactly you are distinguishing the two which may hold in form of say a revised law. What would a revision to the law look like which enables the code to be always free of creative expression (that copyright protects) but still leave books, paintings, etc., still being open to copyrights protection. If the argument is only that the writer of the code is not interested in the form, only the function, they are free to put their code in the public domain, not making use of the copyright protection. And as far as protecting function is concerned, they may make use of patents where applicable. In most other respects (am ignoring other IP laws), the "openness" you ask for is already there.
    • spywaregorilla 5y ago
      > I do think there is creative expression involved in writing code as well, however, I need to understand your point better. Code is just being written in a programming language, whereas a prose/poem is written in a natural language. Both can involve creative expression. I would like to hear more about how exactly you are distinguishing the two which may hold in form of say a revised law. What would a revision to the law look like which enables the code to be always free of creative expression (that copyright protects) but still leave books, paintings, etc., still being open to copyrights protection. I would suggest the form of the code is irrelevant, unless published in a way that exhibits its form AND violated in a way that exhibits its form. E.g. perhaps in a blog about code practices. Code being used to do things is not an expression like poetry. Much in the same way actual language cannot be copyrighted outside of doing a performance. Thinking of an acute example is difficult, but you cannot, for instance, copyright a pickup line at a bar and prevent others from using it, though you may prevent them from publishing it. But pointing again to the fact that it doesn't really matter, because if we fixate on form being relevant, we can train machines to copy intent while distorting form. The complaint of copilot copying code verbatim is a red herring to the problem at hand. edit: though to your other point, I think patents on code are not acceptable either.