🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Feb13.211440.7248@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes:
>In article <1992Feb11.164105.16249@news2.cis.umn.edu> charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
>>If you don't actually rip off GNU code, if you just use the ideas, the
>>algorithms, then you are completely in the clear.  No one is more opposed
>>to algorithm patents, or even "algorithm" copyrights when the legal sharks
>>get around to asserting such things, than FSF.
>
>So you agree believe there is a fundamental difference between the concept
>of an algorithm and the implementation of that algorithm in code?  And that
>the former should not be restricted, but the latter should?  And you believe
>that when I look and find a nifty little search algorithm that's copyrighted
>it's okay for me to convert it to a concept on paper and then convert it
>back to C code?  And you'll trust my word that that is exactly what I did
>and promise not to send your lawyers after me to make sure?  I'd be happy
>to believe that, but I don't think a corporate lawyer would.

Hey.  If in your paranoia you can't tell the difference between Stallman
and Scully, that's your problem.  You either need to see a psychiatrist
or become a lawyer or something like that :-)

More seriously, your behavior has little to do with it.  How can you
prove that you never looked at my code if it is publicly available?
If your code looks a whole lot like my code, who will believe your
assertion of "clean room" practices?  On the other hand, even if
you have looked at my code, but there is no relation between your
code and mine except that they use the same algorithm, there can't
be any copyright infringement, unless the sharks manage to invent
some notion of "algorithm copyright".  I hope we're not there yet.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu