Copyright: Where to draw the line?

Naikon

Right, I understand that the assertion of copyright is potentially granted once the literary expression is fixed in a tangible medium due to the Berne convention. What I do not understand fully, is the apparent threshold for distinction between "common knowledge" and works of individual experession. This is pretty easy for literary works, because the composition is unique due to the vast complexity of the English Language, no matter how "common" the composition.

Due to the mathematical nature of programmming, I don't buy into the "literary" card unless the program structure is very unique. A game or large software package - yes. Usage of API functions, I don't know. Yes, it's easy to attribute the merge sort to John von Neumann, but does merely writing it down in my own words give me the "right" to copyright/patent that Algorithm implementation? I would hope not. I mean come on: take a look at both of the copyrighted strcmp implementations presented here and here

These implementations look very similar, right down to the interfaces. You could claim either one is potentially a derived work. Hell, linking to a bloody library is considered a derivative work. Do I have to write my own libraries to assert total ownership? I fail to see how minimal changes can create a new copyright out of thin air. Gee - headwrecking imo.

I would nearly avoid working in IT due to these issues. At least with hard mathematical formula, you can't assert a copyright or patent on a whim. If this issue gets out of hand, where are we going to end up? Patents/Copyright on a linked list? Down with patents and copyright of trivial implementations, I say! Will my next trivial implementation be afforded copyright if I draw an ascii smiley face around it? Interfaces and return values excluded, of course.

</rant>

Nulty

May I ask what brought this on?

croo

does merely writing it down in my own words give me the "right" to copyright/patent that Algorithm implementation?

I'm no lawyer but I think there is a big difference between copyright & patent!

I always understood that copyright does not come into effect until you publish... so I'm not sure how this might come into effect with say a binary copy of code. But in answer to your question, merely writing it does not give you copyright, but publishing with the copyright does.

The patent must be applied for and granted.

Naikon

Nulty wrote: »

May I ask what brought this on?

Late Night. I am not being sued or anything, thankfully:)

I will try piece together some direct questions about this. The above rant is a bit aimless. Basically, I am confused about copyright when it comes to software. I fail to see the distinction between the two pieces of software above for the purpose of granting invdividual copyright.

The Berne convention states that you don't even need to publish a work to qualify. I find it hard to believe I could copyright hello world, yet these laws state this may be possible. This contradicts what I have been told in the past. I am not being sued or anything:)

croo

Keep in mind Berne is just a convention... each country creates their own laws on how they interpret it. A lot of what you will read on-line re derivative works etc will most probably be based on US law which could differ a lot from Europe and Ireland.

The EU has a directive on copyright but again it's a directive and how hat has been interpreted by our legislators in the writing if copyright law here is what's important.

My understanding of this (from reading re open source licenses) was that, the patent protects the idea but the copyright protects only an implementation of the idea. So if you write a sort that uses a bubble sort idea, you do not have control over the concept of the bubble sort you'd need a patent for that. But your implementation is protected so I cannot simply copy it. But if I, reading about the bubble sort idea, also write my version of a bubble sort - well that does not breach your copyright because I didn't copy yours I created my own.