Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #12168

Re: "Borrowing" code

From	Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: "Borrowing" code
References	(5 earlier) <zYz%q.1162$mT1.281@newsfe09.iad> <26067624.0.1329550046782.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcpl10> <jhof3d$vmn$1@speranza.aioe.org> <4282803.800.1329589683890.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbgq3> <jhp0gf$g4c$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Message-ID	<U6U%q.4214$082.4092@newsfe04.iad> (permalink)
Organization	Public Usenet Newsgroup Access
Date	2012-02-18 16:46 -0400

Show all headers | View raw

On 12-02-18 04:08 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> (snip)
>> You can play the "how many angels can dance on the head of a 
>> pin?" game all you want, but absent the particulars of a given 
>> case you're just playing with yourself.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO-Linux_controversies
> 
> There is much discussion, and links to other cases, in that.
> 
> One interesting one:
> 
>   "Since IBM released the relevant code under the terms of the GPL, it
>   claims that the only permission that SCO has to copy and distribute
>   IBM's code in Linux is under the terms and conditions of the GPL, one
>   of which requires the distributor to "accept" the GPL. IBM says that
>   SCO violated the GPL by denouncing the GPL's validity, and by claiming
>   that the GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright,
>   antitrust and export control laws."
> 
> I hadn't known before that denouncing GPL was a violation of it.
> I wonder if that would be upheld against freedom of speach.

It's not a violation of any license to be critical of it. It _is_ a
violation to not only be critical but then to flout the license.

> The one specific case of copied code involves "errho.h".
> 
> Also, in the "SCO and SGI" section:
> 
>    "The code did not do anything. It was in a part of the Linux kernel
>     that was written in anticipation of a Silicon Graphics architecture
>     that was never released.
> 
>     It had already been removed from the kernel two months earlier.
> 
>     The contested segment was small (80 lines) and trivial."
> 
> Size and triviality haven't been mentioned much in this thread.

See the link I provide below.

I've mentioned triviality a few times. As far as I know "triviality"
actually subsumes other copyright concepts: originality, similarity
tests, de minimus copying, and so forth. For example, the amount of
copying may be so trivial that it is below the threshold for a
substantial similarity test; the defense may then be one of de minimus
copying.

I meant both that, and also originality. If there really is only one way
to express given functionality, it may not even be possible to copyright
the code in the first place.

There is no set minimum amount of code established by any jurisdiction
I've ever heard of. that would make no sense. In many languages 80 lines
of code is a large amount and it's almost not possible to write
something trivial in 80 lines. But that ~80 lines of code you mention
above might have been unoriginal.

> More details on unix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi
> 
>   "The University also claimed that similar lines of source code (which
>    were presented during discovery) did not infringe on USL's copyright
>    because they had become public domain by the actions of AT&T: AT&T
>    had promoted UNIX as a standard, licensing it to universities and
>    allowing UNIX source code to be published in textbooks. The
>    University submitted briefs from the UC Berkeley students and staff,
>    explaining how they had audited the code, looking for freely
>    available copies of the source code and methods. When they could find
>    none, they said, they removed the code and rewrote it using publicly
>    known techniques.and so any remaining similarities existed because
>    AT&T had effectively abandoned the copyright to them."
> 
> Note (more details in the article) that one can lose copyright status.
> 
> Also, that code (and presumably also prose) too similar to already
> public domain code can't be copyrighted. So, BSD didn't have to
> rewrite all the potentially infringing code if they could make a
> case for it already being public, or close enough to public
> domain code.
> 
> Also interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud
> 
> -- glen
> 
Also a very good read:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/originality-requirements.html

AHS
-- 
-- Gaiety is the most outstanding feature of the Soviet Union.
Josef Stalin, November 1935

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

"Borrowing" code Novice <novice@example..com> - 2012-02-16 19:50 +0000
  Re: "Borrowing" code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-02-16 20:28 +0000
  Re: "Borrowing" code Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-16 12:59 -0800
    Re: "Borrowing" code Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-02-16 13:51 -0800
      Re: "Borrowing" code Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-02-16 15:03 -0800
        Re: "Borrowing" code Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 01:21 -0800
          Re: "Borrowing" code Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-02-17 11:29 -0800
            Re: "Borrowing" code Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 11:51 -0800
              Re: "Borrowing" code Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-02-17 17:50 -0400
                Re: "Borrowing" code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-02-17 22:36 +0000
                Re: "Borrowing" code Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 23:27 -0800
                Re: "Borrowing" code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-02-18 15:11 +0000
                Re: "Borrowing" code Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-18 10:28 -0800
                Re: "Borrowing" code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-02-18 20:08 +0000
                Re: "Borrowing" code Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-02-18 16:46 -0400
                Re: "Borrowing" code BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-20 01:58 -0700
                Re: "Borrowing" code Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-02-18 13:03 -0400
                Re: "Borrowing" code Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-18 10:31 -0800
                Re: "Borrowing" code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-02-18 20:15 +0000
                Re: "Borrowing" code Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-02-19 19:46 -0800
                Re: "Borrowing" code Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-02-19 23:08 -0600
                Re: "Borrowing" code Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-02-20 09:17 -0800
                Re: "Borrowing" code Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2012-02-20 09:32 +0000
                Re: "Borrowing" code Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-02-20 01:45 -0800
                Re: "Borrowing" code BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-20 08:35 -0700
                Re: "Borrowing" code Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-02-20 03:59 -0600
            Re: "Borrowing" code Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-17 17:00 -0500
              Re: "Borrowing" code Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2012-02-17 16:08 -0600
                Re: "Borrowing" code Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-17 17:14 -0500
            Re: "Borrowing" code George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2012-02-17 18:00 -0500
              Re: "Borrowing" code Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-02-17 21:54 -0400
          Re: "Borrowing" code Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-17 17:10 -0500
            Re: "Borrowing" code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-02-17 22:42 +0000
              Re: "Borrowing" code Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-02-17 15:22 -0800
                Re: "Borrowing" code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-02-18 01:37 +0000
                Re: "Borrowing" code Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-02-19 19:51 -0800
      Re: "Borrowing" code Novice <novice@example..com> - 2012-02-16 23:37 +0000
      Re: "Borrowing" code Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 01:26 -0800
    Re: "Borrowing" code Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-02-16 19:36 -0400
      Re: "Borrowing" code Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-02-16 22:15 -0600
      Re: "Borrowing" code Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 01:41 -0800
    Re: "Borrowing" code Novice <novice@example..com> - 2012-02-16 23:36 +0000
      Re: "Borrowing" code Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-16 18:42 -0500
  Re: "Borrowing" code BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-16 15:19 -0700
    Re: "Borrowing" code Novice <novice@example..com> - 2012-02-16 23:50 +0000
      Re: "Borrowing" code Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 01:57 -0800
        Re: "Borrowing" code Novice <novice@example..com> - 2012-02-17 17:09 +0000
          Re: "Borrowing" code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-02-17 18:45 +0000
            [OT] Harry Potter copyright claims (Was: "Borrowing" code) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 11:00 -0800
              Re: [OT] Harry Potter copyright claims (Was: "Borrowing" code) Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-02-17 11:36 -0800
            Re: "Borrowing" code Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2012-02-20 09:41 +0000
          Re: "Borrowing" code Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 10:34 -0800
          Re: "Borrowing" code Bent C Dalager <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> - 2012-02-18 00:08 +0000
  Re: "Borrowing" code Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-02-16 18:14 -0500
  Re: "Borrowing" code Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-16 18:37 -0500
    Re: "Borrowing" code Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-02-16 17:39 -0800
  Re: "Borrowing" code Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-02-16 20:34 -0500
  Re: "Borrowing" code Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-02-16 18:01 -0800
    Re: "Borrowing" code Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-16 21:18 -0500
    Re: "Borrowing" code Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-02-16 20:26 -0800
    Re: "Borrowing" code Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-02-16 20:32 -0800
    Re: "Borrowing" code BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-17 00:25 -0700
    Re: "Borrowing" code Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 02:01 -0800
    Re: "Borrowing" code Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2012-02-17 11:36 +0000
  Was: "Borrowing" code -  Links for budding copyright lawyers Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-02-17 17:29 -0500
  Re: "Borrowing" code Novice <novice@example..com> - 2012-02-20 19:22 +0000

csiph-web