| |||||||||||||
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool)Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool)Posted Oct 19, 2006 14:37 UTC (Thu) by tjc (subscriber, #137)In reply to: Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) by drag Parent article: Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool)
If Postgresql was ever to get as good as Oracle, then Oracle would take the code, improve on it, and release it as a closed source product. They don't even have to tell anybody what they did.I'm not so sure about that anymore. My understanding of copyright law is that it protects the expression of ideas, whereas patent law protects the use of ideas. If someone where to refactor mySQL code to a state where it is legally no longer considered a copy, they would in effect be "factoring away" any copyright claims. If true, this means that the GPL only protects unaltered or minimally altered code. I've asked a few people about this, but most people with a legal background don't understand the concept of code refactoring. They tend to think of code in the same light as literature.
(Log in to post comments)
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 19, 2006 22:22 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] ""If someone where to refactor mySQL code to a state where it is legally no longer considered a copy, they would in effect be "factoring away" any copyright claims. If true, this means that the GPL only protects unaltered or minimally altered code.""
I don't think that is how it works.
The only want they'd be able to do it is 'refactor' in such a way that they simply end up replacing all the original code with their own.
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 20, 2006 0:28 UTC (Fri) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] The only want they'd be able to do it is 'refactor' in such a way that they simply end up replacing all the original code with their own.That's not an easy thing to determine. For one thing, what about common programming idioms?
for (i = 0; i < whatever; i++) { ... }
That's so common that I don't think it's copyrightable, and would not have to be refactored to avoid copyright infringement. Nor should it be. If it was copyrightable, then the implication is that a copyright owner is able to restrict the use of ideas for which he/she does not own patents. If trivial patents are bad (and I believe that they are), then using copyright law to restrict the use of ideas is worse.So how much of any given program constitutes an original form of expression? Probably not very much. Variable and type names, and maybe the interfaces between different parts of a program. Most programs are a sequence of common idioms.
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 20, 2006 0:40 UTC (Fri) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] So how much of any given program constitutes an original form of expression? Probably not very much. Variable and type names, and maybe the interfaces between different parts of a program.I made one glaring omission here: comments, or course, are an original form of expression. Also, maybe the layout of non-trivial data structures.
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 20, 2006 3:14 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Copyright law doesn't restrict the rights to use ideas.
That's what software patent law does. It gives people monopoly over using certain concepts in programming.
Copyright protects work. You made something then nobody can just use it without your permission. It works the same way for a doodle on a napkin in a bar to writing multi-billion dollar applications.
You made it, you own it.
It doesn't stop somebody else from making their own programs or making their own database stuff or doodles or whatever.
""for (i = 0; i < whatever; i++) { ... }
That's so common that I don't think it's copyrightable, and would not have to be refactored to avoid copyright infringement. Nor should it be. So how much of any given program constitutes an original form of expression?""
You wrote something it's yours. If your copying somebody else's stuff without permission it's copyright infringement. It's pretty simple. A single line of generic code is just to trivial to even be considured. Nobody cares.
They have precedent set on what sort of proofs are required before you can be successfully found libal for copyright infringement.Things like the amount of matching code that is required for you to be found liable; programs designed to analis non-trivial simularities between code bases, expert testimony, etc etc
Weither or not something is derived work is up to the judge to decide. Law isn't programming, there is no rigid boundry or interpretation. It's about humans dealing with humans. If your doing something dishonest and your copying code against the license they are going to try to find a way to bust you.
""Probably not very much. Variable and type names, and maybe the interfaces between different parts of a program. Most programs are a sequence of common idioms.""
It doesn't matter weither or not something is a 'unique expression'. If a person wrote a program you can't simply copy the code with out their permission. That's all.
Your making it way to complicated.
If you want to take somebody else's code and obscure it so much that nobody can ever figure out if you stole it or not.. then that's probably something you could get away with, but it doesn't mean it's legal or it's worth the effort. You'd be better of writing your own stuff it would probably be cheaper and faster.
This is very non-theoretical stuff we are talking about. Copyright law is very well established.
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 20, 2006 15:15 UTC (Fri) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] Copyright law doesn't restrict the rights to use ideas.Yes, I think we agree on that.
Copyright protects work.My understanding is that copyright is more specific than that -- it protects the expression of ideas, not just work in general.
They have precedent set on what sort of proofs are required before you can be successfully found libal for copyright infringement.Things like the amount of matching code that is required for you to be found liable; programs designed to analis non-trivial simularities between code bases, expert testimony, etc etcWell there's "comparator" for a start: http://catb.org/~esr/comparator/comparator.html But it's not really clear what the precedent is. To the best of my knowlege all successful GPL violation law suites have involved the blatant copying of minimally modified code from one program to another. I know of no law suites that have been settled on the basis of code that has been determined to have been derived from previous work in a non-obvious way. The reason I bring all this up is because we as a community make a big fuss about licenses, but legal precedent is vague at best, except in the obvious case mentioned above. This could be a big problem down the road. I'd love to hear Eblen Moglen talk about this.
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 20, 2006 15:38 UTC (Fri) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] Part 2:
Your making it way to complicated.There are people who do that for a living. ;-) Lots of them. :-| If you want to take somebody else's code and obscure it so much that nobody can ever figure out if you stole it or not.. then that's probably something you could get away with, but it doesn't mean it's legal or it's worth the effort. You'd be better of writing your own stuff it would probably be cheaper and faster.At this point I see no point in encumbering my software with a license more restrictive than the original Apache Software License (minus clause #3), since anything beyond that probably isn't enforceable anyway, except in the trivial case of blatant copying. This is very non-theoretical stuff we are talking about. Copyright law is very well established.Yes, for literature it is, but not for source code. It's all very fuzzy.
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 22, 2006 8:57 UTC (Sun) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link] > So how much of any given program constitutes an original form of expression? Probably not very much. Variable and type names, and maybe the interfaces between different parts of a program. Most programs are a sequence of common idioms.
The use and arrangement of those common idioms may, however, be expressive and subject to copyright. Recall that in copyright law for plain old literature, you don't have to re-use any particular words to be in violation -- if I release a book which has the same number of chapters as your book, with pretty much the same events happening in each, then I'm almost definitely in violation.
The general framework that at least some circuit courts use for this is the "abstraction, filtration, and comparison" test, where "abstraction" refers to looking for expressive elements at all levels, not just variable names and interfaces. E.g., one decent article I found searching around: http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise22.html
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 23, 2006 14:11 UTC (Mon) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] Thanks for the link.
|
|||||||||||||