LWN.net Logo

Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool)

Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool)

Posted Oct 20, 2006 3:14 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
In reply to: Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) by tjc
Parent article: Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool)

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.


(Log in to post comments)

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.

That's what software patent law does.

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 etc
Well 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.

Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds