Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: glen herrmannsfeldt Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: "Borrowing" code Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:11:42 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 36 Message-ID: References: <1848237.679.1329425962537.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbgq3> <7l2rj71n2qk6kqf27dpv59tl7qi5tfmc42@4ax.com> <5368336.186.1329470502072.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbeo1> <21955541.159.1329508308005.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbgq3> <26067624.0.1329550046782.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcpl10> NNTP-Posting-Host: H0vc4U5LIRkRHNPyGCs2dA.user.speranza.aioe.org X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: tin/1.9.6-20100522 ("Lochruan") (UNIX) (Linux/2.6.32-5-amd64 (x86_64)) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:12161 Lew wrote: (snip) > AIUI, if you copy the same expression as a copyright work without permission, > you have violated the copyright. That's the law. 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. There are many language constructs that are normally done the same way, but not copied. It is likely possible to convince a judge that something was copied when, in fact, it wasn't. >> Code is not prose or poetry. That's why automatic copyright for source >> code is a flawed concept. Ideally people should have to explain why they >> think their code rates copyright. I understand that we shouldn't be >> flouting the current (broken) system, but we shouldn't be passively >> accepting it either. >> I guarantee that each and every one of us writes code routinely, >> independently and without copy & paste and without reference to others' >> material, that could be attacked on the basis of copyright, simply >> because someone published something basic. Are you cool with that? > You could write a Harry Potter novel without seeing the original work, too. > J.K. Rowling could then sue you, as her publishers have done, and you would > lose. Are you cool with that? There were stories about completely different versions of HP7 being released in China. That is, without seeing the original. But suing in China isn't so easy. > Copyright exists to protect the expression of a work. It has value. It ' > prevents others from profiting from the copyright holder's work without > sharing the profit, or at least getting permission. Yes, I'm cool with that. -- glen