Twitter at the speed of parenting
All the angst over the definition of "open source" is mirrored in the fight we will soon have over "proprietary". There's a meaningful difference between traditional proprietary models and "don't compete w me" licenses even if we sometimes lump them together.https://twitter.com/VanL/status/1174759891711483904 …
-
I was thinking about this. On the other hand, as an end user, I like the idea that by seeing code I can better understand and consent to what I am choosing to use.
My understanding of current case law around this is that you can use ideas you see in other source code (even closed code) in your free software code, as long as you reimplement it. No copy/paste - the text is subject to copyright but the ideas are not.
-
-
Once you've seen it, it's hard to prove you didn't copy it, especially if best practices lead you to similar solutions. Unconscious copying is also a thing. Clean rooming exists to put your code above reproach.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Tagging
@pchestek and@o0karen0o to weigh in, because that's what I do whenever these questions come up. :) -
Copyright infringement isn't just copy paste. The legal concept is idea-expression continuum: no copyright on ideas, only copyright on expression. But there is no clear line between the two. Oracle has so far successfully claimed that the abstraction of Java APIs is copyrightable
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.