And Here We Have........ Vas!

[Bill Rogers]

I have a question for the GPL worshipers. Let us assume that a man writes a chess program and publishes it under GPL. You all assume that all of that code is protected. What if 60 to 80% of the subroutines have been used before in open source programs that were never put into GPL?
Are you now going to tell me that they are now protected by GPL licenses?
I don't think any judge in the world would back you up on that stance.
Basically there are only two main things about a chess program that can make it unique, one is its evaluation function and the other can be its search as there are all kinds of things a search program can do, ie. forward pruning etc.
As I stated in another post the United States Copywright Laws state that if a program contains over 10% new code then the program can be considered as a new program. That does not mean simply chaging the names of variables of the placement of subroutines within a program.
As I have posted in the past more than once, I have worked for a software company in Silicone Valley for over 15 years as the controller and have had to file law suits against a few pirates and won every case, I am fully aware of the US Copywright Laws.
Bill

[kranium]

I have a question for the GPL worshipers. Let us assume that a man writes a chess program and publishes it under GPL. You all assume that all of that code is protected. What if 60 to 80% of the subroutines have been used before in open source programs that were never put into GPL?
Are you now going to tell me that they are now protected by GPL licenses?
I don't think any judge in the world would back you up on that stance.
Basically there are only two main things about a chess program that can make it unique, one is its evaluation function and the other can be its search as there are all kinds of things a search program can do, ie. forward pruning etc.
As I stated in another post the United States Copywright Laws state that if a program contains over 10% new code then the program can be considered as a new program. That does not mean simply chaging the names of variables of the placement of subroutines within a program.
As I have posted in the past more than once, I have worked for a software company in Silicone Valley for over 15 years as the controller and have had to file law suits against a few pirates and won every case, I am fully aware of the US Copywright Laws.
Bill

Bill-
with all due respect...
i believe you're very experienced, but how the heck is it that you haven't learned how to spell it?

[bnemias]

I have a question for the GPL worshipers.

That is uncalled for.

Let us assume that a man writes a chess program and publishes it under GPL. You all assume that all of that code is protected. What if 60 to 80% of the subroutines have been used before in open source programs that were never put into GPL?
Are you now going to tell me that they are now protected by GPL licenses?

Of course not. Only the original copyright applies to those routines, because only the holder for the original license is allowed to transfer it. But your new project would become GPL if that's your intent. If someone later claimed GPL violation on those particular parts, all you would have to do is say you copied the original (non-GPL'd code) instead of the GPL project. Now, ethically, you should be doing that anyway, but there's no real way to determine the difference.

As I stated in another post the United States Copywright Laws state that if a program contains over 10% new code then the program can be considered as a new program. That does not mean simply chaging the names of variables of the placement of subroutines within a program.

Please provide the law that states this. There is a common misconception about fair use which is frequently used to try to wriggle out of copyright violations. It's a myth anyway, but goes something like: If I use less than 10% of the work, then it's covered under fair use and therefore not a copyright violation.

[bnemias]

What if 60 to 80% of the subroutines have been used before in open source programs that were never put into GPL?
Are you now going to tell me that they are now protected by GPL licenses?

I should also mention that the GPL is about derivative works, not parent works. It's not retroactive. (nor is any copyright for that matter)

[kranium]

I have worked for a software company in Silicone Valley for over 15 years as the controller and have had to file law suits against a few pirates and won every case, I am fully aware of the US Copywright Laws.
Bill

Silicone Valley? that place in California with all the buxom aspiring Hollywood starlets ?

sorry, couldn't resist it...

[Dann Corbit]

I have a question for the GPL worshipers. Let us assume that a man writes a chess program and publishes it under GPL. You all assume that all of that code is protected. What if 60 to 80% of the subroutines have been used before in open source programs that were never put into GPL?
Are you now going to tell me that they are now protected by GPL licenses?
I don't think any judge in the world would back you up on that stance.
Basically there are only two main things about a chess program that can make it unique, one is its evaluation function and the other can be its search as there are all kinds of things a search program can do, ie. forward pruning etc.
As I stated in another post the United States Copywright Laws state that if a program contains over 10% new code then the program can be considered as a new program. That does not mean simply chaging the names of variables of the placement of subroutines within a program.
As I have posted in the past more than once, I have worked for a software company in Silicone Valley for over 15 years as the controller and have had to file law suits against a few pirates and won every case, I am fully aware of the US Copywright Laws.
Bill

Of course, these restrictions are not unique to GPL, but would apply to any software license. Even more all-embracing, pre-existing artwork will invalidate a patent that has already been granted.

These things are as they should be. For instance, if I write a sort routine and someone pokes it into a GPL project, does *my* code become GPL? Not unless the original license was also GPL. The software license should protect exactly the part that is original and nothing else. This would be true under any sort of logical license that I can imagine.