5 ms·

I didn't ask if can I use other people's proprietary closed source code, obviously they have the right to that code and how it's used. I asked if I can learn f

I didn't ask if can I use other people's proprietary closed source code, obviously they have the right to that code and how it's used. I asked if I can learn from that code, which obviously I can. There is no license that says "You cannot learn from this code and take the things you learn to become a better programmer". That's exactly what I do and it's exactly what AI do.

ghaff 4y ago
If you study a closed source compiler (or whatever) in order to write a competitive product, and the company who wrote the original product sues you for copying it, as the parent suggests, you're on shaky legal ground. Which is why clean room design is a thing.
- nickelpro 4y ago
  A clean room design ensures the new code is 100% original, and not a copy of the base code. That is why it is legally preferable, because it is easy to prove certain facts in court. But fundamentally the problem is copyright, the copying of existing IP, not knowledge. grondo4 is completely correct that there is no legal framework that prevents learning from closed-source IP. If such a framework existed, clean room design would not work. The initial spec-writers in a clean room design are reading the protected work.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    >The initial spec-writers in a clean room design are reading the closed-source work. Right. And they're only exposing elements presumably not covered by copyright to the developers writing the code. (Of course, this assumes they had legitimate access to the code in the first place.) Clean room design isn't a requirement in the case of, say, writing a BIOS which may have been when this first came up. But it's a lot easier to defend against a copyright claim when it's documented that the people who wrote the code never saw the original. Unlike with patents, independent creation isn't a copyright violation.
    - nickelpro 4y ago
      I don't understand what your point here is. The initial spec-writers learned from the original code. This is not illegal, we seem to be agreed on this point. grondo made the point that learning from code should not be prohibited. What are you contesting?
      - ghaff 4y ago
        My point was that, assuming access to the code was legit, and the information being passed from the spec-writers to the developers wasn't covered by copyright (basically APIs and the like), it's a much better defense against a copyright claim that any code written by the developers isn't a copyright violation given they never saw the original code.
supermatt 4y ago
> I asked if I can learn from that code, which obviously I can. Did you actually read the link you were given? Clean room design is because you may inadvertently plagiarize copyrighted works from your memory of reading it. i.e. the act of reading may cause accidental infringement when implementing the "things you learn"
- nickelpro 4y ago
  Sure but the infringement is the problem, not the ideas themselves. You're describing thought crime right now. It's not illegal to learn things.
  - supermatt 4y ago
    And if you "learn" something and accidentally rewrite it verbatim? Thats what clean-room design is to protect against
    - nickelpro 4y ago
      Rewriting the code verbatim and distributing it would be a copyright infringement, yes, you do not have a write to distribute code written by other people That's completely different from reading and learning from code, which is what grondo described. Clean room design relies on this, in a clean room design you have one party read and describe the protected work, and another party implement it. That first party reading the protected work is learning from closed-source IP.
      - supermatt 4y ago
        > That's completely different from reading and learning from code, which is what grondo described. AI (e.g. copilot) has already been shown to break copyright of material in its training set. Thats the context of this whole thread.
        nickelpro 4y ago
bioemerl 4y ago
I think you're missing the one big flaw here. How exactly do you have access to closed source code? Did you acquire it illegally? That's illegal. Was it publicly available? That's fine, so long as you aren't producing exact copies and violate normal copyright law.

ghaff 4y ago

If you study a closed source compiler (or whatever) in order to write a competitive product, and the company who wrote the original product sues you for copying it, as the parent suggests, you're on shaky legal ground. Which is why clean room design is a thing.

nickelpro 4y ago
A clean room design ensures the new code is 100% original, and not a copy of the base code. That is why it is legally preferable, because it is easy to prove certain facts in court. But fundamentally the problem is copyright, the copying of existing IP, not knowledge. grondo4 is completely correct that there is no legal framework that prevents learning from closed-source IP. If such a framework existed, clean room design would not work. The initial spec-writers in a clean room design are reading the protected work.
- ghaff 4y ago
  >The initial spec-writers in a clean room design are reading the closed-source work. Right. And they're only exposing elements presumably not covered by copyright to the developers writing the code. (Of course, this assumes they had legitimate access to the code in the first place.) Clean room design isn't a requirement in the case of, say, writing a BIOS which may have been when this first came up. But it's a lot easier to defend against a copyright claim when it's documented that the people who wrote the code never saw the original. Unlike with patents, independent creation isn't a copyright violation.
  - nickelpro 4y ago
    I don't understand what your point here is. The initial spec-writers learned from the original code. This is not illegal, we seem to be agreed on this point. grondo made the point that learning from code should not be prohibited. What are you contesting?
    - ghaff 4y ago
      My point was that, assuming access to the code was legit, and the information being passed from the spec-writers to the developers wasn't covered by copyright (basically APIs and the like), it's a much better defense against a copyright claim that any code written by the developers isn't a copyright violation given they never saw the original code.

supermatt 4y ago

> I asked if I can learn from that code, which obviously I can. Did you actually read the link you were given? Clean room design is because you may inadvertently plagiarize copyrighted works from your memory of reading it. i.e. the act of reading may cause accidental infringement when implementing the "things you learn"

nickelpro 4y ago
Sure but the infringement is the problem, not the ideas themselves. You're describing thought crime right now. It's not illegal to learn things.
- supermatt 4y ago
  And if you "learn" something and accidentally rewrite it verbatim? Thats what clean-room design is to protect against
  - nickelpro 4y ago
    Rewriting the code verbatim and distributing it would be a copyright infringement, yes, you do not have a write to distribute code written by other people That's completely different from reading and learning from code, which is what grondo described. Clean room design relies on this, in a clean room design you have one party read and describe the protected work, and another party implement it. That first party reading the protected work is learning from closed-source IP.
    - supermatt 4y ago
      > That's completely different from reading and learning from code, which is what grondo described. AI (e.g. copilot) has already been shown to break copyright of material in its training set. Thats the context of this whole thread.
      - nickelpro 4y ago

bioemerl 4y ago

I think you're missing the one big flaw here. How exactly do you have access to closed source code? Did you acquire it illegally? That's illegal. Was it publicly available? That's fine, so long as you aren't producing exact copies and violate normal copyright law.