5 ms·

I think the author has no clue about copyright law. If he wanted to legally protect his algorithm he should have patented it and given a licence to use it only

I think the author has no clue about copyright law. If he wanted to legally protect his algorithm he should have patented it and given a licence to use it only with his BSD-licensed implementation. Still, IANAL.

bjornsing 12y ago
Well, for all we know that's exactly what he has done [1]. ;) 1. http://www.google.com/patents/US20090043584 http://www.google.com/patents/US20090043584
- mariuolo 12y ago
  The name seems to match, but then why not mention it?
  - poizan42 12y ago
    Considering that he used the word "copywrite" I think there's a good chance that he hired a lawyer to secure the IP, but didn't understand any of it himself.
    - bchociej 12y ago
      USPTO's PAIR website indicates that he filed the patent application himself. (It was rejected on non-patentability.)
    - code_duck 12y ago
      I noticed that too, but he proceeds to use 'copyright' several times after that.
bchociej 12y ago
Why BSD license it if you don't want others using it? That's the point of the BSD license. "Redistribution is permitted" etc.