----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: 1@dont-email.me> d0fbdf4b
@REPLY:
<3ed68a86-bd05-4b0f-aafb-89aabd46fa42n@googlegroups.com> 1afe9013
@REPLYADDR dxf <dxforth@gmail.com>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 dxf
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-Message-ID: 1@dont-email.me>
@RFC-References:
<20230923111604.892@kylheku.com>
<3ed68a86-bd05-4b0f-aafb-89aabd46fa42n@googlegroups.com>
@TZUTC: 1000
@PID: Mozilla Thunderbird
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On 24/09/2023 9:54 am, Brad Eckert wrote:
> On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 11:28:56 AM UTC-7, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2023-09-23, albert@cherry.(none) (albert)
wrote:
>>> I study the source of clojure:
>>>
>>> / ------------------------------------------
>>> /**
>>> * Copyright (c) Rich Hickey. All rights reserved.
>>> The use and distribution terms for this software are covered by the
>>> * Eclipse Public License 1.0
(http://opensource.org/licenses/eclipse-1.0.php)
>>> * which can be found in the file epl-v10.html at the root of
this distribution.
>>> * By using this software in any fashion, you are agreeing to be bound by
>>> * the terms of this license.
>>> * You must not remove this notice, or any other, from this software.
>>> **/
>>>
>>> /* rich Jun 11, 2008 */
>>>
>>> package clojure.lang;
>>>
>>> public interface IReduce extends IReduceInit{
>>> Object reduce(IFn f) ;
>>> }
>>> / ------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Really? Can we be forced to look at copyright before we can use
>>> this? Can this trivial code really be copyrighted?
>> It`s very common for software projects to have unform copyright headers
>> plastered into every file.
>>
>> This applies to proprietary, commercial software as well as free open
>> source.
>>
>> I`ve never worked in a company in which every source file we developed
>> didn`t have a copyright block on the top, no matter how trivial the
>> content.
>>
>> Pretty trivial works are copyrightable, like simple-minded pop songs.
>>> Note that the copyright message dwarfs the code.
>> The code looks like it is only an interface specification; i.e.
>> it defines an API and not any program behavior.
>>
>> Copyrighting API`s is a form of monopolistic abuse.
>>
>> It was the subject of a lawsuit between Oracle and Google.
>>
>> Read all about it here.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API#Dispute_over_copyright_protection_for_APIs
>>
>> (And in fact that involved Java, not that it matters.)
>>
>> The latest scoop is that Oracle kept appealing this all the way to
>> the U.S. Supreme Court and lost; the court decided that Google`s cloning
>> of APIs isn`t infringing.
>>
>> Whether or not APIs are copyrightable, projects are going to stick their
>> copyright header on files that define APIs, and simply copy-pasting
>> their exact definition (especially including the copyright header, doh!)
>> could be infringing.
>>
>> --
>> TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
>> Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
>> Mastodon: @Kazi...@mstdn.ca
>> NOTE: If you use Google Groups, I don`t see you, unless you`re whitelisted.
>
> "The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers."
> From Shakespeare`s Henry VI
>
> I have a better idea. Force all the lawyers to develop large C++ applications.
"Welcome to My [Copyright] Nightmare" - Alice Cooper
--- Mozilla Thunderbird
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441