3 ms·

Are you really suggesting that it's not possible for you write an independent implementation of an algorithm from the version you once read? Is this sort of "cl

by shoyer 11y ago

Are you really suggesting that it's not possible for you write an independent implementation of an algorithm from the version you once read? Is this sort of "clean room" approach typical? It strikes me as absurdly cautious.

TimSAstro 11y ago
Interesting dilemma. I had assumed that re-writing in another language basically meant you were copyright free (as long as you're not literally transcribing or automatically translating), but it appears it's not that simple: http://imranontech.com/2006/12/04/are-algorithms-copyrightable/ http://imranontech.com/2006/12/04/are-algorithms-copyrightab...
jordigh 11y ago
It is what is known to be legally safe. We do it all the time in GNU Octave, and we always tell people to not read Matlab source code when implementing Octave functions. Besides, I just don't feel like it's fair to the R copyright authors. They worked hard to produce an implementation and they copylefted it, and I heavily relied on their implementation in order to reimplement it myself. According to the United States Copyright Office[1], the algorithm itself can't be copyrighted, so that's why I wrote a high-level description of the algorithm. ---- [1] "Copyright protection is not available for ideas, program logic, algorithms, systems, methods, concepts, or layouts." http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ61.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ61.pdf
- shoyer 11y ago
  I agree -- you shouldn't read sources you don't want to treat as derivative while you're writing an independent implementation. So yes, the code you've already written is GPL. But suppose you decide to reimplement the algorithm now, months later (based only on the notes you wrote on Wikipedia). I'm not a lawyer, but I would say that's almost certainly independent, unless you have extraordinary memory.
  - jordigh 11y ago
    I don't know. Maybe. I don't know how a judge and a jury would interpret that situation. They might agree with you or they might not. The only safe jurisprudence I know of is clean-room design, and it's what the SFLC documents I have received recommend.

by shoyer 11y ago

TimSAstro 11y ago

Interesting dilemma. I had assumed that re-writing in another language basically meant you were copyright free (as long as you're not literally transcribing or automatically translating), but it appears it's not that simple: http://imranontech.com/2006/12/04/are-algorithms-copyrightable/ http://imranontech.com/2006/12/04/are-algorithms-copyrightab...

jordigh 11y ago

It is what is known to be legally safe. We do it all the time in GNU Octave, and we always tell people to not read Matlab source code when implementing Octave functions. Besides, I just don't feel like it's fair to the R copyright authors. They worked hard to produce an implementation and they copylefted it, and I heavily relied on their implementation in order to reimplement it myself. According to the United States Copyright Office[1], the algorithm itself can't be copyrighted, so that's why I wrote a high-level description of the algorithm. ---- [1] "Copyright protection is not available for ideas, program logic, algorithms, systems, methods, concepts, or layouts." http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ61.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ61.pdf

shoyer 11y ago
I agree -- you shouldn't read sources you don't want to treat as derivative while you're writing an independent implementation. So yes, the code you've already written is GPL. But suppose you decide to reimplement the algorithm now, months later (based only on the notes you wrote on Wikipedia). I'm not a lawyer, but I would say that's almost certainly independent, unless you have extraordinary memory.
- jordigh 11y ago
  I don't know. Maybe. I don't know how a judge and a jury would interpret that situation. They might agree with you or they might not. The only safe jurisprudence I know of is clean-room design, and it's what the SFLC documents I have received recommend.