No. Please do some background reading before making these bald assertions.  wikipedia or any search engine. also depends on which countries laws.  i can only speak confidently about US ip law. but international treaties kinda unify how copyright works, mostly. theres a thing called moral rights outside the us, i dont really understand it and perhaps thats what youre thinkjng of, idk


theres absolutely no mysticism needed, but you need to find some background reading for thr regions law. law logic is not like formal methods. itd like deciding who gets hen in the disagreement based on applicable live statutes and or in english style court systems: any precedent in related disputes. but it can involve a dispute frkm 150 yrs ago ans how it was decided

also pragmatically: every copyright dispute that holds any water tends to involve naked theft. 

show me these open source gpl/agpl/closed source but in training sets for coding that have capabilitirs that would work verbatim in ghc.  i reallly reallly want to look at these compilers!!

On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 4:07 PM <code@jaro.addy.io> wrote:
Re 1: I think it is quite a tall order to require a concrete example of
copyright infringement.

I don't see how 2 & 3 are related to my messages in this thread. I did not
mention morality nor did I assume no laws were written as jokes or out of
spite. If you think I did, please explain your reasoning more clearly and point
to specific parts of my responses.

Also, if the law is really so complex, contradictory, and sometimes written or
enforced as a joke or out of spite, shouldn't we be extra careful to avoid even
a tiny risk of being sued?

On 9/1/26 21:25, Carter Schonwald via ghc-devs 'ghc-devs at haskell.org' wrote:
> 1) i want haskell native examples of the actual worrys, not abstract ones
>
> 2) people have literally written enforced laws as a joke or spite, please do
> some supplementary reading to ground your conjecture in legal writings, even
> from wikipedia
>
> 3) morals and law are not the same. llms do conflate thise all the time. i
> totally beleive you have better moral values thanapplicable law, but thats not
> law.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 2:37 PM <code@jaro.addy.io <mailto:code@jaro.addy.io>>
> wrote:
>
>     It's true that sometimes there is only one way to implement something and I
>     know copyright does not cover such cases. However, I think that is quite rare
>     in software development, especially once we start looking at combinations of
>     two or three functions.
>
>       > and fortunately literally here means verbatim
>       >
>       > naively these two remarks sound contradictory, but its really a
>     reflection of
>       > the anthropogenic complexity of humanity
>
>     I remain utterly confused about what you mean with “literally” and “verbatim”,
>     and thus unconvinced by your arguments. Like, are you saying that renaming all
>     variables and functions and changing all for-loops to while-loops (using C for
>     this example) is a valid way to avoid copyright infringement because it is no
>     longer a literal or verbatim copy? I refuse to believe that.
>
>     On 9/1/26 20:12, Carter Schonwald via ghc-devs 'ghc-devs at haskell.org
>     <http://haskell.org>' wrote:
>      > yes, because code is math, and sometimes theres only one proof, and
>     copyright
>      > doesnt protect factual stuff just the ultra soecific exact sentence (except
>      > when its literally the only sane way to say soemthing).
>      >
>      > there is a huge amount of law / case law / history for how this works,  and
>      > fortunately literally here means verbatim
>      >
>      > naively these two remarks sound contradictory, but its really a
>     reflection of
>      > the anthropogenic complexity of humanity
>      >
>      > On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 1:56 PM <code@jaro.addy.io
>     <mailto:code@jaro.addy.io> <mailto:code@jaro.addy.io
>     <mailto:code@jaro.addy.io>>>
>      > wrote:
>      >
>      >     If you define “exact literal content” so broadly as to allow for
>     translations
>      >     of prose, why wouldn't it also apply to translating software to
>     different
>      >     languages or using different naming conventions and other minor code
>     style
>      >     elements?
>      >
>      >     On 9/1/26 19:50, Carter Schonwald 'carter.schonwald at gmail.com
>     <http://gmail.com> <http://
>      > gmail.com <http://gmail.com>>' wrote:
>      >      > translations are explicitly reusing the exact literal content,
>     and theres
>      >      > explicitly carve outs in modern law around translated works
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      > math and food recipes are explicitly not protected by copyright law.
>      >      >
>      >      > i hope that helps clarify?
>      >      >
>      >      > On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 1:41 PM <code@jaro.addy.io
>     <mailto:code@jaro.addy.io>
>      >     <mailto:code@jaro.addy.io <mailto:code@jaro.addy.io>>
>     <mailto:code@jaro.addy.io <mailto:code@jaro.addy.io>
>      >     <mailto:code@jaro.addy.io <mailto:code@jaro.addy.io>>>>
>      >      > wrote:
>      >      >
>      >      >      > building dimilar code for a similar task in a
>      >      >      > different language is definitely not infringing  unless
>     its also
>      >     copying
>      >      >     all
>      >      >      > the text from the source application like some sort of
>     text rpg.
>      >      >     What if we compare this to literature? Surely a translation of a
>      >     book into
>      >      >     another language is still considered a derivative work, even
>     if it
>      >     reuses none
>      >      >     of the “literal text”.
>      >      >
>      >
>      >
>
>