[sldev] Fwd: [Opensim-dev] Violating the GPL by looking (Re: Voice Module)

Jason Giglio gigstaggart at gmail.com
Wed Mar 19 09:22:47 PDT 2008


Tateru Nino wrote:
> Essentially correct, yes. The issue is derived code.
> 
> However take SCO vs (well, everyone) as an example. In a limited grammar 
> there are limited ways to express algorithms.

Correct.  In which case it is not subject to copyright at all.  For 
there to be a copyright, there must be an "original creative expression".

Case law in this area has exempted purely factual and non-creative works 
from copyright protection.  In this vein, phone book listings and other 
statements that have no original creative expression involved are not 
protected.

Because of this, algorithms can't be copyrighted.  Ever.

More info:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ61.html
"Copyright protection is not available for ideas, program logic, 
algorithms, systems, methods, concepts, or layouts."

A specific expression of an algorithm *might* be subject to copyright, 
if it includes enough original creative expression on top of the mere 
mathematical truth of the algorithm.  If there's only a few ways to 
express it, then it's surely not got much creative expression.

> If two products to perform a given task X contain pieces of otherwise 
> identical code, and those pieces of matching code in B were contributed 
> by someone who was exposed to the code from A, then lawyers start 
> sharpening their briefcases - or whatever basically 'girding' activities 
> the legal profession actively performs.
> 
> Who is the burden of proof on, in this case?

The burden of proof in copyright cases, which are civil cases, is on the 
plaintiff.  The plaintiff must show with a preponderance of evidence 
that infringement occurred.


More information about the SLDev mailing list