Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Source Code & Copyright

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the whither-the-courts dept.

cunamara writes "Patently-O has posted a discussion of Aharonian v. Gonzales . Aharonian is trying to build a database of source code as a repository of prior art. The interesting thing is in part of the decision, which is that "Conversely, if plaintiff independently creates software that is functionally identical to other software, he does not infringe any copyright on the other software's source code, even if his independently created source code is nearly identical to the copyrighted source code." Interesting. But how does one defend "nearly identical" independently created source code from a copyright infringement lawsuit?" I'm actually not as interested in the copyright side of things as I am in the notion of using something like that for prior art of software patents. The argument that source code is uncopyrightable, with some extensions could be applied to almost all, say, fiction stories since no one's written a truly new story in like five thousand years.

5 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. Intellectual Property Laws by thedletterman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not a big fan of "near-identical" copyrighting source code.. It's almost like copyrighting mathematical equations. The compiler creates a framework designed to achieve predictable results, and whatever results are achieved within that framework, isn't the invention of genius, but the application of an engineering language. It's cclearly wrong to rip off chunks of people's programming and sell it as your own, but if there's proof of linear progression of programming which achieves a similiar function using a similiar process within the programming framework, there's no reason the other's work should be thrown out, or licensed against the 'prior artists'. Intellectual property is going to be such a freaking headache if shit like this is allowed to continue.

    --
    Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
  2. You don't need a truly new story... by bitkari · · Score: 5, Interesting

    the argument that source code is uncopyrightable, with some extensions could be applied to almost all, say, fiction stories since no one's written a truly new story in like five thousand years.

    The idea is not what is protected under copyright, it is the work itself which is protected under copyright. Just because the idea implemented in a story (or computer program for that matter) has been done before, that does not mean that someones actual book, movie or videogame is somehow immune from copyright.

    Patents, on the other hand... Well, let's not get started on patents...

  3. Solution by Elektroschock · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The solution for the software patent mess is not "prior art" or "inventive step". These are red herrings of the debate. It is better to follow the Adelphi Charter.


    3. The public interest requires a balance between the public domain and private rights. It also requires a balance between the free competition that is essential for economic vitality and the monopoly rights granted by intellectual property laws.
    4. Intellectual property protection must not be extended to abstract ideas, facts or data.
    5. Patents must not be extended over mathematical models, scientific theories, computer code, methods for teaching, business ...
    * Change must be allowed only if a rigorous analysis clearly demonstrates that it will promote people's basic rights and economic well-being.


    For US citizens it important to get organised. FFII has an USA mailing list. Perhaps it might serve as a breeding ground for a US campaign which becomes equivalent to the EU campaign effort. Americans are perfect communicators in the field of software patents but lack anti-swpat organisation.

    Currently the rest of the world suffers from the American unability to get anti-Software Patent interests organised.

  4. There are a few ways to do something... by Big_Mamma · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For example, there aren't much variation in ways to code a doubly linked list. If a project in java needs one, you need to write it yourself, because it isn't in java.util.* yet. With a standard coding style in that language, I've seen quite a few near identical looking implementations for an assignment.

    It's about time to stop suing over one snippet of code in a project - there are only so many ways to do the basic tasks. It's how you use the individual lego blocks to build something that counts - if you copy the whole design and claim it as your own, then you deserve to be sued, not for using five white ones to build a wall, as everyone does that.

  5. Most code is the same as some other code. by thogard · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Two decades ago when doing stupid things with neural nets was fashionable in computer science, I built a neural net C compiler. Odd thing is it worked on small programs so I expanded it.

    Its parser would takes code of the form foo=foo+bar; and reduces it to foo+=bar; or other minimal C with translation to var1+=var2; It would then hand that off to the NN compiler. It then ran every bit of C code I could find through it. Its interesting that there were only about 160 (if I remember right) common statements that appeared more than once and most of them were followed by a very limited subset of other statements.
    If you reduced a program another step into:
    common_line1;
    common_line23;
    common_line7; ...

    It ended up that many bits of code where exactly the same in many programs or had very small differences.
    The most interesting stat was most C used less than about 100 common statements but the guys at Bells Labs added about 40 (of which I think Joe Ossanna was responsible for 30 or so) and BSD guys added about 10. The IOCCC entries didn't change the results but I don't think the compiler ever got any of them right even after a cb and extra reduction step which says something about their code.