Timeline for Is it possible to rewrite every line of an open source project in a slightly different way, and use it in a closed source project?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 26, 2015 at 16:00 | comment | added | ThePopMachine | @Killian: "Boughtest"? | |
| S Oct 18, 2014 at 14:47 | history | suggested | CommunityBot | CC BY-SA 3.0 | remove curse word |
| Oct 18, 2014 at 13:12 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 18, 2014 at 14:47 | |||||
| Oct 31, 2013 at 16:09 | comment | added | Michael Riley - AKA Gunny | ∞+1 That is the perfect answer | |
| Jan 5, 2013 at 3:26 | comment | added | David Stone | @apsillers That sounds like a fair assessment. I wasn't trying to suggest that a clean room approach would eliminate patent liability. However, the law is that if you are aware of a patent and infringe it, you are liable for greater damages (because the infringement is willful). Therefore, some people try to limit their knowledge to limit potential liability. | |
| Jan 4, 2013 at 16:59 | comment | added | apsillers | To further clarify my above comment, a major factor in determining copyright infringement is the defendant's access to the original work, which clean room design is intended to reduce to zero. Note that I make no claims about whether clean room design is actually a legally sound practice. I only mean to clarify that it is intended to reduce copyright infringement liability, rather than to reduce patent infringement liability. | |
| Jan 4, 2013 at 16:37 | comment | added | apsillers | @DavidStone You have it backwards. You must understand that a logical algorithm and a particular expression of an algorithm in code are legally separate; only the expression is copyrightable. The group doing the re-implementation has no contact with the original expression of the algorithm (they only see in-house documentation about the logical algorithm) and their written expression will likely be different from the original expression, so it is quite unlikely they could violate copyright. However, they can violate a patent easily, since their logical algorithm is identical to the original. | |
| Dec 12, 2012 at 5:58 | comment | added | David Stone | What you describe is not a defense for copyright, but rather, patents. The "clean room" approach allows you to use the defense that the people implementing the algorithm could not have copied the patented work because they were not exposed to it. This does not actually remove any liability; it just reduces it. However, that only applies to patents. Copyright is applicable and carries the same penalties regardless of how you violate it. In theory, I could randomly generate a copyrighted work and still be found in violation of copyright law if I distribute something that is copyrighted. | |
| Jun 24, 2011 at 23:23 | comment | added | Chris Barry | @Mike yep, it was a good day to rep. | |
| Jun 24, 2011 at 21:52 | comment | added | Mike DeSimone | Boom, repcap... | |
| Jun 24, 2011 at 21:22 | comment | added | David Thornley | @optician: Depends on how close you get to re-creating the original, actually, and that's the sort of question you do need a lawyer to answer. | |
| Jun 24, 2011 at 20:17 | comment | added | Chris Barry | OK, so maybe the title of this post is a bit inflammatory. If I rephrased it to "I want to learn an algorithm by studying a GPL licensed application, and then re-implement the algorithm myself. Is this legal?" Does that change the situation? | |
| Jun 24, 2011 at 18:45 | comment | added | Randy Levy | Can we still call it a Chinese wall? | |
| Jun 24, 2011 at 17:54 | comment | added | Justin C | If the software is successful at all, it would most likely end up in court at some point. | |
| Jun 24, 2011 at 17:32 | comment | added | QueueHammer | That's "if" it ever got to court. | |
| Jun 24, 2011 at 15:00 | comment | added | Marjan Venema | I wish I could give you +10... | |
| Jun 24, 2011 at 14:16 | history | answered | Kilian Foth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |