🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2795@hammer.TEK.COM> andrew@hammer.TEK.COM (Andrew Klossner) writes:
>[]
>
>	"If I were to buy a software package with sources, how
>	extensively would I have to make changes to the system in order
>	to call it my own?  Would changing field names?  Record/file
>	layouts?  Running it thru a translator (Language A in, Language
>	B out)?  Changes to mainline logic?"
>
>If the code is copyrighted, as almost all code is, no amount of change
>will let you call it your own.  Anything you produce starting with that
>code is a "derived work" and is the property of the owner of the
>original; you have no rights to it.
>
>The only way to make code that you can call your own is to start from
>scratch or to start with public domain code.
>
>  -=- Andrew Klossner   (decvax!tektronix!tekecs!andrew)       [UUCP]
>                        (tekecs!andrew.tektronix@csnet-relay)  [ARPA]
That's right.
Translating into another computer language is just like
translating a novel into  another language--the author has
control over it.

The author of Minix, a new Unix work-alike, says that
he has had people give him programs that were identical to
AT&T source code except for changing the names of the variables,
claiming they were now not covered by the orignal copyright.
He naturally turned them down for inclusion in his package.

However...

You cannot copyright an idea, only the expression of it.
So, if someone figures out an especially neat algorithm
and sells you the source copde for implementing it, you can still
use his/her technique, but you must implement it yourself.

Even though there are a theoretically infinite way to express
any algorithm, in practice there are only a limited
number of "natural" implementations.
When I was involved with a first-year programming course,
I realized how many different ways there are to accomplish
a particular programming goal, and how individual
programs tend to be.

Mike Ciaraldi
seismo!rochester!ciaraldi