4 ms·

This is completely incorrect, at least for the US. As I understand it (not a lawyer, but did take an IP law class a number of years ago), all creative works ge

This is completely incorrect, at least for the US. As I understand it (not a lawyer, but did take an IP law class a number of years ago), all creative works get copyright by default. A list requiring no creativity, such as a complete alphabetical list of names and phone numbers, has no copyright, or at least "thin" copyright. However, lists that show creativity ("most important phone numbers in the US") have copyright even though the facts they contain are not copyrighted. "Optimized algorithms" are most definitely creative. Even a straightforward implementation of an algorithm has creativity, if only in naming, the use of `for` vs `foreach` vs `while`, and any machine/OS/language specific details. Class structures and code organization is definitely copyrighted: Google's (successful) defense in Google v. Oracle was not that APIs (class structures and organization) are not copyrightable, but that their use of the APIs was fair use. Comments are even more copyrightable, as they are creative writing describing the code. Unless your comments are mechanically generated, I guess, then the phone book ruling could hold, but in that case you should improve your comments. A more accurate rule of thumb is that everything is copyrighted.

williamcotton 4y ago
"In computer programs, concerns for efficiency may limit the possible ways to achieve a particular function, making a particular expression necessary to achieving the idea. In this case, the expression is not protected by copyright." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Compari... This allows for verbatim copies if they are utilitarian in nature! As for why we should allow verbatim copies of utilitarian features... First, let's preface this with the substantial similarity of the structure, sequence and organization as established in Whelan v. Jaslow which amongst other things says that you cannot merely change the variable names if the expressive structure of the code remains the same. Now let's imagine 10,000 software developers who all implement Dijkstra's algorithm in C and then run it through clang-format. Aside from variable names, isn't it safe to assume that many of the implementations are going to be exactly the same? Now, this doesn’t mean that GitHub is not in violation of other copyright claims, such as clearly expressive parts like comments and more!
williamcotton 4y ago
And from the article: "If there's only one good way to do it, OK, then that's probably not eligible for copyright." That's from Tyler T. Ochoa: Professor Ochoa is a recognized expert in copyright law and rights of publicity. He joined the Santa Clara University School of Law faculty in 2003, and he served as Academic Director of the High Technology Law Institute for the 2005-2006 academic year. Prior to joining Santa Clara Law, Professor Ochoa served as a professor and co-director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law at Whittier Law School. He has also served as a clerk for the Honorable Cecil F. Poole of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and as an associate with the law firm of Brown & Bain in Palo Alto, California, where he specialized in copyright and trade secret litigation involving computer software. He is also a two-time “Jeopardy!” champion and a champion on “Win Ben Stein’s Money”.

williamcotton 4y ago

"In computer programs, concerns for efficiency may limit the possible ways to achieve a particular function, making a particular expression necessary to achieving the idea. In this case, the expression is not protected by copyright." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Compari... This allows for verbatim copies if they are utilitarian in nature! As for why we should allow verbatim copies of utilitarian features... First, let's preface this with the substantial similarity of the structure, sequence and organization as established in Whelan v. Jaslow which amongst other things says that you cannot merely change the variable names if the expressive structure of the code remains the same. Now let's imagine 10,000 software developers who all implement Dijkstra's algorithm in C and then run it through clang-format. Aside from variable names, isn't it safe to assume that many of the implementations are going to be exactly the same? Now, this doesn’t mean that GitHub is not in violation of other copyright claims, such as clearly expressive parts like comments and more!

williamcotton 4y ago

And from the article: "If there's only one good way to do it, OK, then that's probably not eligible for copyright." That's from Tyler T. Ochoa: Professor Ochoa is a recognized expert in copyright law and rights of publicity. He joined the Santa Clara University School of Law faculty in 2003, and he served as Academic Director of the High Technology Law Institute for the 2005-2006 academic year. Prior to joining Santa Clara Law, Professor Ochoa served as a professor and co-director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law at Whittier Law School. He has also served as a clerk for the Honorable Cecil F. Poole of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and as an associate with the law firm of Brown & Bain in Palo Alto, California, where he specialized in copyright and trade secret litigation involving computer software. He is also a two-time “Jeopardy!” champion and a champion on “Win Ben Stein’s Money”.