GPL and taking idea's

[GenoM]

If you translate a program to another programming language then it means that the expression of the idea is different based on my understanding of the word expression.

Uri

Uri,

in my understanding translating a program from one to another programming language is like writing screenplay based on the novel. If you don't pay to author of the novel he'll sue you and for sure will make you pay up a decent amount of cash.

Regards,
Geno

[bob]

Christophe wrote:
The goal of the analysis conducted by the courts in order to determine if one program is a derivative work of the other is to find out if the ideas used by a program (which are not protectable) are expressed in the same way in both. What is protected, ultimately, is the "expression" of the ideas.

I think that none addressed the above point properly, hence a new thread. I went through the GPL stuff that came inside the Fruit 2.1 archive (listed below) and see no clear cut evidence that taking idea's falls under the licence provided you program the idea yourself. But maybe I drowned into the lawyer stuff, that could be. So if someone would point it out to me I would be grateful.

In case idea's do fall under the GPL agreement I wonder how many engines are really clean as it is my estimation 90% of those who studied Fruit have taken something. I am awaiting to see many new GPL engines to be released soon. Sarcasm intended.

Ed

The important things to read in what I have written are:
- the ideas used by a program are not protectable
- what is protected is the EXPRESSION of the idea

OK, this is not clear enough, I agree.

From the process the courts use to find similarities in programs, here is what I can add:

- if you build your program starting from a description of an idea, it is very unlikely that you will end up with a program that could be found to be similar (in the courts' sense) to another one. So unlikely that it is considered safe to proceed this way.

- if you build your program by copying another program, translate it (to another programming language for example), change variable and function names, reorder lines, you will get caught by the process used by the courts.



// Christophe

If you translate a program to another programming language then it means that the expression of the idea is different based on my understanding of the word expression.

Uri

That is really no different than translating a novel from English to Spanish.

[Uri Blass]

Christophe wrote:
The goal of the analysis conducted by the courts in order to determine if one program is a derivative work of the other is to find out if the ideas used by a program (which are not protectable) are expressed in the same way in both. What is protected, ultimately, is the "expression" of the ideas.

I think that none addressed the above point properly, hence a new thread. I went through the GPL stuff that came inside the Fruit 2.1 archive (listed below) and see no clear cut evidence that taking idea's falls under the licence provided you program the idea yourself. But maybe I drowned into the lawyer stuff, that could be. So if someone would point it out to me I would be grateful.

In case idea's do fall under the GPL agreement I wonder how many engines are really clean as it is my estimation 90% of those who studied Fruit have taken something. I am awaiting to see many new GPL engines to be released soon. Sarcasm intended.

Ed

The important things to read in what I have written are:
- the ideas used by a program are not protectable
- what is protected is the EXPRESSION of the idea

OK, this is not clear enough, I agree.

From the process the courts use to find similarities in programs, here is what I can add:

- if you build your program starting from a description of an idea, it is very unlikely that you will end up with a program that could be found to be similar (in the courts' sense) to another one. So unlikely that it is considered safe to proceed this way.

- if you build your program by copying another program, translate it (to another programming language for example), change variable and function names, reorder lines, you will get caught by the process used by the courts.



// Christophe

If you translate a program to another programming language then it means that the expression of the idea is different based on my understanding of the word expression.

Uri

That is really no different than translating a novel from English to Spanish.

The difference is that in case of a novel there is no claim that the ideas used in the novel are not protected and only the expression of the ideas is protected.

Uri

[lexdom]

...snip

Uri[/quote]

That is really no different than translating a novel from English to Spanish.[/quote]

The difference is that in case of a novel there is no claim that the ideas used in the novel are not protected and only the expression of the ideas is protected.

Uri[/quote]

Authors lose appeal over Da Vinci Code plagiarism

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/mar/28/danbrown.books

[Uri Blass]

<snipped>

Authors lose appeal over Da Vinci Code plagiarism

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/mar/28/danbrown.books

There is some limit to how much ideas are protected but basically if ideas were not protected you could translate a novel from english to another language because only the expression of the ideas is different.

I think that programming is also different than writing a novel and it is better to decide simply that the GPL is invalid.

It is hard to prove GPL violations so the only fair competition is competition that allows everybody to start from public code(when the only limitation can be against clear case of derivatives like toga that is a derivative of fruit)

If it is clear that majority of the code was changed then my opinion is for the author or for the modifier.(majority is about important things and if a program has different opening book you cannot say that you changed the opening book so majority of the code was changed)

Uri

[tiger]

<snipped>

Authors lose appeal over Da Vinci Code plagiarism

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/mar/28/danbrown.books

There is some limit to how much ideas are protected but basically if ideas were not protected you could translate a novel from english to another language because only the expression of the ideas is different.

I think that programming is also different than writing a novel and it is better to decide simply that the GPL is invalid.

It is hard to prove GPL violations so the only fair competition is competition that allows everybody to start from public code(when the only limitation can be against clear case of derivatives like toga that is a derivative of fruit)

If it is clear that majority of the code was changed then my opinion is for the author or for the modifier.(majority is about important things and if a program has different opening book you cannot say that you changed the opening book so majority of the code was changed)

Uri

OK I understand your point of view.

In theory I guess we could, as a community, decide that the rule is that the GPL is invalid. That would effectively level the field in some way and people like me who have strictly adhered to copyright laws (even going as far as not copying ideas from Fruit but that's my fault) would simply have to adapt.

But if we do that then we start taking really big risks from a legal point of view. Any programmer is at risk of being attacked for copyright infringement because the group cannot prevent a law from being enforced.

So as desirable as you consider it from an ideological point of view, and even if we all agreed, it is simply not possible.

The field can only be leveled by making sure that at least the copyright laws are respected by all programmers.



// Christophe

[Terry McCracken]

<snipped>

Authors lose appeal over Da Vinci Code plagiarism

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/mar/28/danbrown.books

There is some limit to how much ideas are protected but basically if ideas were not protected you could translate a novel from english to another language because only the expression of the ideas is different.

I think that programming is also different than writing a novel and it is better to decide simply that the GPL is invalid.

It is hard to prove GPL violations so the only fair competition is competition that allows everybody to start from public code(when the only limitation can be against clear case of derivatives like toga that is a derivative of fruit)

If it is clear that majority of the code was changed then my opinion is for the author or for the modifier.(majority is about important things and if a program has different opening book you cannot say that you changed the opening book so majority of the code was changed)

Uri

OK I understand your point of view.

In theory I guess we could, as a community, decide that the rule is that the GPL is invalid. That would effectively level the field in some way and people like me who have strictly adhered to copyright laws (even going as far as not copying ideas from Fruit but that's my fault) would simply have to adapt.

But if we do that then we start taking really big risks from a legal point of view. Any programmer is at risk of being attacked for copyright infringement because the group cannot prevent a law from being enforced.

So as desirable as you consider it from an ideological point of view, and even if we all agreed, it is simply not possible.

The field can only be leveled by making sure that at least the copyright laws are respected by all programmers.



// Christophe

I understand. It's a shame really that this is so. Imagine the progress sharing all these ideas without conflict!

I know, not very realistic. *Sigh*

Terry