4 ms·

> any author would be idiotic to read stolen source code and then decide to create a OSS library/project based on what they learn from it. What? Why? Isn't thi

> any author would be idiotic to read stolen source code and then decide to create a OSS library/project based on what they learn from it. What? Why? Isn't this what software developers do — they read a lot of code; they find ideas they like; they mix them together with their own ideas while building something. Isn't this how learning works in general?

wizzwizz4 4y ago
> What? Why? Isn't this what software developers do — they read a lot of code; they find ideas they like; they mix them together with their own ideas while building something. Not normally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here#In_computing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here#In_computing More to the point: an organisation will usually use cleanroom techniques to clone something like this, if they choose to do so. Anyone who's been in contact with the original source code is "polluted": https://wiki.winehq.org/Developer_FAQ#Copyright_Issues https://wiki.winehq.org/Developer_FAQ#Copyright_Issues
- fsflover 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
- EMIRELADERO 4y ago
  Worthy to note that the "clean-room" doctrine is not required and even discouraged legally, in favor of more direct source code reading and idea extraction (See Sega v. Accolade and Sony v. Connectix, in which the latter court commented on clean-room being inefficient and the kind of wasted effort that fair use was designed to prevent) The whole point of the idea/expression dichotomy is that copyright doesn't protect ideas. To that end, extracting the uncopyrightable elements out of copyrightable code is more than legal and court-endorsed. Wine's approach just makes me sad, lots of wasted effort on black-box testing where a disssembly of the real code would be legally in the clear and allow it to advance at much better speeds.
- fidgewidge 4y ago
  You aren't allowed to use cleanroom techniques to clone something that's been stolen. You're still guilty of copyright violation for even downloading the code in the first place, and who knows, maybe also laws against receipt of stolen goods. Cleanroom reverse engineering is usually applied to a product that you've actually bought and paid for. You'd have to be really crazy to try and use this code for anything.
  - hanoian 4y ago
    Yeah, reverse engineer the end product. You can't have one guy in the office looking at leaked code writing up detailed specs of how the code works and then giving that to someone to write.
  - welshwelsh 4y ago
    God copyright/IP is so stupid, we should get rid of it. People should be able to just download and use this code directly
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
alkonaut 4y ago
It is. There is this hysterical idea that reading code somehow makes you "tainted" when it comes to ever "safely" implementing something similar.

wizzwizz4 4y ago

> What? Why? Isn't this what software developers do — they read a lot of code; they find ideas they like; they mix them together with their own ideas while building something. Not normally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here#In_computing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here#In_computing More to the point: an organisation will usually use cleanroom techniques to clone something like this, if they choose to do so. Anyone who's been in contact with the original source code is "polluted": https://wiki.winehq.org/Developer_FAQ#Copyright_Issues https://wiki.winehq.org/Developer_FAQ#Copyright_Issues

fsflover 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
EMIRELADERO 4y ago
Worthy to note that the "clean-room" doctrine is not required and even discouraged legally, in favor of more direct source code reading and idea extraction (See Sega v. Accolade and Sony v. Connectix, in which the latter court commented on clean-room being inefficient and the kind of wasted effort that fair use was designed to prevent) The whole point of the idea/expression dichotomy is that copyright doesn't protect ideas. To that end, extracting the uncopyrightable elements out of copyrightable code is more than legal and court-endorsed. Wine's approach just makes me sad, lots of wasted effort on black-box testing where a disssembly of the real code would be legally in the clear and allow it to advance at much better speeds.
fidgewidge 4y ago
You aren't allowed to use cleanroom techniques to clone something that's been stolen. You're still guilty of copyright violation for even downloading the code in the first place, and who knows, maybe also laws against receipt of stolen goods. Cleanroom reverse engineering is usually applied to a product that you've actually bought and paid for. You'd have to be really crazy to try and use this code for anything.
- hanoian 4y ago
  Yeah, reverse engineer the end product. You can't have one guy in the office looking at leaked code writing up detailed specs of how the code works and then giving that to someone to write.
- welshwelsh 4y ago
  God copyright/IP is so stupid, we should get rid of it. People should be able to just download and use this code directly

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

alkonaut 4y ago

It is. There is this hysterical idea that reading code somehow makes you "tainted" when it comes to ever "safely" implementing something similar.