On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:25:45 +0000 (UTC), Maciej Katafiasz
<mathrick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Den Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:01:05 -0500 skrev George Neuner:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:34:53 -0800 (PST), Ingo Menger
>> <quetzalcotl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>On 11 Feb., 13:00, Xah Lee <x...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> Mark Tarver <dr.mtar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> «A lot of those [mathematica's list manipulation] functions have been
>>>> around in CL for years implemented by CL programmers in applications
>>>> or as part of the language standard.»
>>>>
>>>> You speak too quick Mark.
>>>>
>>>> From what i know of emacs lisp, and scheme literature (reading the
>>>> sicp book and r4rs a decade ago), and from the discussions i see from
>>>> Common Lispers here, CL has nothing like the complete set of
>>>> Mathematica's list manipulating functions.
>>>
>>>Since when is it forbidden to implement some algorithms, assuming
nobody
>>>has a patent on them?
>>>For this, we don't even have to discuss the utterly absurd notion of a
>>>patent on algorithms. The only question is, whether the "complete set
of
>>>Mathematica's list manipulating functions in any language of the world"
>>>is patented or not.
>>
>> The algorithms may be PD, but Wolfram may have a copyright on the API
>> which you _might_ be infringing by implementing it elsewhere. "Look
and
>> feel" copyrights are a PITA because you can never predict how a judge
>> will perceive similarities.
>
>Are you sure you can copyright APIs at all? IANAL and IANEAUC[1],
Yes, APIs can be both copyrighted and patented. My father and sister
are IP attorneys so I am quite certain of this. I myself am not an
attorney, but I speak legalese fluently and I generally keep up with
changes in IP law because it increasingly affects everything software.
****
Disclaimer: don't take my word for anything ... if you have questions
or concerns consult a qualified IP attorney.
****
>but I seem to recall that there were precendents at least in the US
>copyright law that made .h files and their kin NOT copyrighteable.
In fact all code is copyrightable - both sources and binaries.
Human readable .h files and the like are copyrighted by default under
the Berne convention. Binary files produced by a tool from human
readable source are derivative works covered by the copyright on the
source that produced them. Once assembled into a distribution, the
distribution itself is copyrightable.
So the .h file itself is copyrighted as an original work. In
addition, particular contents of the file may be covered under
separate copyright which the file's author has license to reproduce or
derive (either by being also the author of the included information or
by contract with the original author or his delegate). This would be
the case with the API representation contained in the file.
So the rights conferred with an .h file may be quite complicated. For
example, the user may have limited reproduction rights (e.g., he can
give copies to coworkers), may use the file in his own original work,
but may not alter the file or transfer it to anyone not directly
involved in his work, and may not use it to develop a derivative work
(aka. a competing implementation).
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
|
