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.

9 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.

    1. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The problem is that people who do understand complain in internet forums like Slashdot. You are an example of this.

      Most politicians don't read what you write. Most people don't read Slashdot. The few politicians who do read what you say, know that "normal" people don't, so they ignore you.

      There are 4 effective actions you can take.

      • Write letters to the papers.
      • Write letters to the politicians
      • Call the politicians. You might at least talk to an assistant
      • If that doesn't work, organize a demonstration, so that news media will notice you.


      By "letters" I mean regular letters made by paper. The e-mails WILL be ignored.
      I would do it my self, but as I am not American, my views don't count :-)

      Start small, influence your friends to do the same. Use the internet for organization and information, but keep all communications to the people who matter out of the net. No-body cares about petitions on the net, but when they get 500 sheets of papers in their mail, they will
  4. The status of the case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Dismissed. The case is now on appeal.
    The idea that something may not infringe copyright in spite of the fact that it is nearly identical, is a bit of a stretch. It is true sometimes. For instance, if there is a standard way of doing things then bits of code will be identical. On the other hand, for those bits of code that may be copyrighted, the statement sounds nonsensical. Remember, not all code can be copyrighted. Much/most/all the code SCO claimed was in violation of its (disputed) copyrights is not copyrightable.

    1. Re:The status of the case by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, the point about copyright is about copy. If someone who never heared about Harry Potter would sit down on himself and write a book which turns out by pure chance to be word for word identical to the existing one, it would not be copyright violation. However, it's very unlikely than anyone would believe him, because it's very unlikely that this would happen.

      Basically in copyright cases, the difficult part is to proof or disproof that there was indeed a copy involved. The similarities are important because they are indications for or against copying. The additional problem with changed copies is of course to determine how much of the changed document is really copy, and how much is just using the concepts. That's also the point of clean-room reimplementations: By doing so you give evidence completely separate from the produced work itself that the work itself isn't a copy, but just a reimplementation of the same concepts.

      IANAL however.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. The Phoenix BIOS experiment by Richard+Kirk · · Score: 5, Informative
    Usually this sort of discussion relies on hypothetical arguments. However, there are real cases where software has been created under controlled conditions, and then analysed for similarity. The Phoenix BIOS was written by people with coding experience but with no prior knowledge of the BIOS used in the IBM PC. They were given a functional description of what the BIOS should do. Care was taken to ensure they could not reverse engineer the IBM BIOS or directly compare their code to the IBM code.

    What they wrote ended up having large bursts of code that was identical to the IBM PC BIOS. Sometimes there is only one good way of doing something.

    Well, this is what I remembered reading years ago. It was an unusual exercise because the actual amount of code was small, so the potential legal cost per byte was very high. If there is someone out there who actually was part of this project, maybe they can post their experiences, and say whether I have got it vaguely right.