[Coco] FPGA 63x09

[Bill Barnes]

If what you say is true, well, EVERYONE is in trouble.

-Later!   -WB-    -- BABIC Computer Consulting.


--- On Fri, 3/27/09, Jeff Teunissen <deek at d2dc.net> wrote:

> From: Jeff Teunissen <deek at d2dc.net>
> Subject: Re: [Coco] FPGA 63x09
> To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco at maltedmedia.com>
> Date: Friday, March 27, 2009, 10:52 PM
> jdaggett at gate.net
> wrote:

> Sorry, the point is not moot. You can change EVERY single
> line and still
> infringe copyright, _especially_ with such "template" use.
> Copyright does not apply at all to the so-called
> "functional aspects" of a
> program -- that is, the stuff that is required to perform a
> task. If any
> particular job can be performed optimally only by a
> specific method, no code
> that exactly implements that method is, or can be (at least
> in the US),
> covered by copyright.

Good thing too, as Look and Feel could get even M$ in trouble. However, many IP lawsuits are over *how* code does a task.


> What IS subject to (and protected by) copyright is the
> parts of a program that
> can be considered "speech"; the specifics of how it is put
> together, the style
> in which the program's components are arranged, the
> comments (if any), all the
> stuff that programmers can use to describe the programmer's
> intent and what
> the code _means_ (as opposed to just what it _does_, which
> copyright doesn't
> give a crap about).

they do care about *HOW* it _does_ it.


> By starting with someone else's design (even if you don't
> actually copy a damn
> thing directly!), you open the door to copyright
> infringement, because the
> meaning of the original code doesn't change when you add
> new code. Even if you
> were to incrementally rewrite until nothing of the original
> code is left,
> unless you completely change the design as well, it's still
> a derivative
> work...and if you were going to do that, what was the point
> in using the
> original code in the first place?

Sounds like SCO's argument against Linux, as some who contributed to Linux used to work on the code for Unix. But there has to be enough *original,* or code deemed the same, present to stick.


> Some years back, George Harrison was sued for copyright
> infringement over a
> song, "My Sweet Lord", that he had written on his own.
> Harrison was found by a
> jury to have "unconsciously" copied a small part (just a
> few notes) of the
> Shirelles' song "He's So Fine", because that song had been
> getting radio play
> a short time before Harrison wrote "My Sweet Lord".

In a case like this, all one has to do is convince a jury you are right, and in reality, what you convince them of can be disguised BS just as easily as the truth. Sad but true, and we all suffer for it.


> It sucks, but that's also how it is with computers.
> Ironically, because of the
> old programming languages, many of which were much less
> expressive than
> today's funky stuff like Perl and Python, there's a lot of
> old code out there
> with very little "speech" in it because all the programmer
> could do was tell
> the compiler/interpreter what to do. With today's languages
> (Perl being an
> extreme example), two programmers might do the same task in
> *radically*
> different ways and both methods could well be optimal (or
> at least irreducible).

And, unfortunately, some company will still call IP violation, if they feel it's worth the expenses, and if they claim some rights to the code in question.