containers license issue

Dmitry Kulagin

12 Dec 2012 12 Dec '12

10:34 a.m.

Hi Cafe, I am faced with unpleasant problem. The lawyer of my company checked sources of containers package and found out that it refers to some GPL-library. Here is quote: "The algorithm is derived from Jorg Arndt's FXT library" in file Data/IntMap/Base.hs The problem is that FXT library is GPL and thus containers package can not be considered as BSD3. And it means that it can not be used in my case (closed source software). Is this logic actually correct and containers should be considered as GPL? The package is widely used by other packages and the only way I see right now is to fix sources to reimplement this functionality, which is not good option. Thank you!

Attachments:

attachment.html (text/html — 895 bytes)

Show replies by date

Vo Minh Thu

12 Dec 12 Dec

10:47 a.m.

2012/12/12 Dmitry Kulagin :

...

Hi Cafe,

I am faced with unpleasant problem. The lawyer of my company checked sources of containers package and found out that it refers to some GPL-library.

Here is quote: "The algorithm is derived from Jorg Arndt's FXT library" in file Data/IntMap/Base.hs

The problem is that FXT library is GPL and thus containers package can not be considered as BSD3. And it means that it can not be used in my case (closed source software).

Is this logic actually correct and containers should be considered as GPL?

The package is widely used by other packages and the only way I see right now is to fix sources to reimplement this functionality, which is not good option.

GPL covers code, not algorithms. Beside, you can use GPL in closed-source code. GPL forces you to make the source available when you distribute the software, but if you don't distribute the software, there is nothing wrong to use GPL and not make your code available. HTH, IANAL, Thu

David Thomas

11 a.m.

Right. If either of the following hold, you should be able to carry on as you were (but double check with your lawyer): 1) The algorithm is borrowed but the code was not copied. In this case, copyright doesn't cover it, and the GPL is inapplicable. (Patents could conceivably be an issue, but no more so than if it was BSD code). 2) If you are not going to be distributing the code - either it is used for internal tools or in the backend of a networked service (which the GPL does not treat as distribution, as distinct from the AGPL). If a sizable chunk of actual code was copied, then the containers package would have to be GPL, and if you are using the library and distribute programs built with it then those programs must be GPL as well. On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Vo Minh Thu wrote:

...

...
Hi Cafe,

I am faced with unpleasant problem. The lawyer of my company checked

2012/12/12 Dmitry Kulagin : sources

...
of containers package and found out that it refers to some GPL-library.

Here is quote: "The algorithm is derived from Jorg Arndt's FXT library" in file Data/IntMap/Base.hs

The problem is that FXT library is GPL and thus containers package can not be considered as BSD3. And it means that it can not be used in my case (closed source software).

Is this logic actually correct and containers should be considered as GPL?

The package is widely used by other packages and the only way I see right now is to fix sources to reimplement this functionality, which is not good option.

GPL covers code, not algorithms.

Beside, you can use GPL in closed-source code. GPL forces you to make the source available when you distribute the software, but if you don't distribute the software, there is nothing wrong to use GPL and not make your code available.

HTH, IANAL, Thu

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Clark Gaebel

11:19 a.m.

I think this is a potential problem, but, obviously, IANAL. [1] According to the GPL: To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well. and You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. and of course You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11). I believe that this counts as "propagation" of the original work, since it would be considered "infringement under applicable copyright law". Now, the wording in the GPL is a bit confusing on this point. I'm not sure if propagation requires that the BSD3 that containers is licensed under must remain in force, or the GPL on which the which is derived must remain in force. Does anyone else have better luck interpreting this? - Clark [1] Aside: Can we stop saying IANAL? Let's just all assume that, until proven otherwise, no one here is a lawyer. [2] Required Reading: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:00 AM, David Thomas wrote:

...

Right. If either of the following hold, you should be able to carry on as

you were (but double check with your lawyer):

...

1) The algorithm is borrowed but the code was not copied. In this case,

copyright doesn't cover it, and the GPL is inapplicable. (Patents could conceivably be an issue, but no more so than if it was BSD code).

...

2) If you are not going to be distributing the code - either it is used

for internal tools or in the backend of a networked service (which the GPL does not treat as distribution, as distinct from the AGPL).

...

If a sizable chunk of actual code was copied, then the containers package

would have to be GPL, and if you are using the library and distribute programs built with it then those programs must be GPL as well.

...

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Vo Minh Thu wrote:

...
2012/12/12 Dmitry Kulagin :

...
Hi Cafe,

I am faced with unpleasant problem. The lawyer of my company checked

sources

...

...
...
of containers package and found out that it refers to some GPL-library.

Here is quote: "The algorithm is derived from Jorg Arndt's FXT library" in file Data/IntMap/Base.hs

The problem is that FXT library is GPL and thus containers package can not be considered as BSD3. And it means that it can not be used in my case (closed source software).

Is this logic actually correct and containers should be considered as GPL?

The package is widely used by other packages and the only way I see right now is to fix sources to reimplement this functionality, which is not good option.

GPL covers code, not algorithms.

Beside, you can use GPL in closed-source code. GPL forces you to make the source available when you distribute the software, but if you don't distribute the software, there is nothing wrong to use GPL and not make your code available.

HTH, IANAL, Thu

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Vo Minh Thu

11:27 a.m.

I'm not sure what your point is. Re-implementing an algorithm is not a copyright infringement (nor is a propagation of the original work). Algorithms are not covered by copyright. 2012/12/12 Clark Gaebel :

...

I think this is a potential problem, but, obviously, IANAL. [1]

According to the GPL:

To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.

and

You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force.

and of course

You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).

I believe that this counts as "propagation" of the original work, since it would be considered "infringement under applicable copyright law". Now, the wording in the GPL is a bit confusing on this point. I'm not sure if propagation requires that the BSD3 that containers is licensed under must remain in force, or the GPL on which the which is derived must remain in force. Does anyone else have better luck interpreting this?

- Clark

[1] Aside: Can we stop saying IANAL? Let's just all assume that, until proven otherwise, no one here is a lawyer. [2] Required Reading: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:00 AM, David Thomas wrote:

...
Right. If either of the following hold, you should be able to carry on as you were (but double check with your lawyer):

1) The algorithm is borrowed but the code was not copied. In this case, copyright doesn't cover it, and the GPL is inapplicable. (Patents could conceivably be an issue, but no more so than if it was BSD code).

2) If you are not going to be distributing the code - either it is used for internal tools or in the backend of a networked service (which the GPL does not treat as distribution, as distinct from the AGPL).

If a sizable chunk of actual code was copied, then the containers package would have to be GPL, and if you are using the library and distribute programs built with it then those programs must be GPL as well.

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Vo Minh Thu wrote:

...
2012/12/12 Dmitry Kulagin :

...
Hi Cafe,

I am faced with unpleasant problem. The lawyer of my company checked sources of containers package and found out that it refers to some GPL-library.

Here is quote: "The algorithm is derived from Jorg Arndt's FXT library" in file Data/IntMap/Base.hs

The problem is that FXT library is GPL and thus containers package can not be considered as BSD3. And it means that it can not be used in my case (closed source software).

Is this logic actually correct and containers should be considered as GPL?

The package is widely used by other packages and the only way I see right now is to fix sources to reimplement this functionality, which is not good option.

GPL covers code, not algorithms.

Beside, you can use GPL in closed-source code. GPL forces you to make the source available when you distribute the software, but if you don't distribute the software, there is nothing wrong to use GPL and not make your code available.

HTH, IANAL, Thu

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Clark Gaebel

11:29 a.m.

It's not an algorithm. The source code of containers is derived from the source code of another library. - Clark On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Vo Minh Thu wrote:

...

I'm not sure what your point is.

Re-implementing an algorithm is not a copyright infringement (nor is a propagation of the original work). Algorithms are not covered by copyright.

...
I think this is a potential problem, but, obviously, IANAL. [1]

According to the GPL:

To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without

...
would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.

and

You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force.

and of course

You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly

...
under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).

I believe that this counts as "propagation" of the original work, since it would be considered "infringement under applicable copyright law". Now,

...
wording in the GPL is a bit confusing on this point. I'm not sure if propagation requires that the BSD3 that containers is licensed under must remain in force, or the GPL on which the which is derived must remain in force. Does anyone else have better luck interpreting this?

- Clark

[1] Aside: Can we stop saying IANAL? Let's just all assume that, until proven otherwise, no one here is a lawyer. [2] Required Reading: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:00 AM, David Thomas
wrote:

...
Right. If either of the following hold, you should be able to carry on

as

...
you were (but double check with your lawyer):

1) The algorithm is borrowed but the code was not copied. In this case, copyright doesn't cover it, and the GPL is inapplicable. (Patents could conceivably be an issue, but no more so than if it was BSD code).

2) If you are not going to be distributing the code - either it is used for internal tools or in the backend of a networked service (which the GPL does not treat as distribution, as distinct from the AGPL).

If a sizable chunk of actual code was copied, then the containers

2012/12/12 Clark Gaebel : permission, provided the package

...
...
would have to be GPL, and if you are using the library and distribute programs built with it then those programs must be GPL as well.

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Vo Minh Thu wrote:

...
2012/12/12 Dmitry Kulagin :

...
Hi Cafe,

I am faced with unpleasant problem. The lawyer of my company checked sources of containers package and found out that it refers to some

GPL-library.

...
...
Here is quote: "The algorithm is derived from Jorg Arndt's FXT library" in file Data/IntMap/Base.hs

The problem is that FXT library is GPL and thus containers package

can

...
not be considered as BSD3. And it means that it can not be used in my case (closed source software).

Is this logic actually correct and containers should be considered as GPL?

The package is widely used by other packages and the only way I see right now is to fix sources to reimplement this functionality, which is not good option.

GPL covers code, not algorithms.

Beside, you can use GPL in closed-source code. GPL forces you to make the source available when you distribute the software, but if you don't distribute the software, there is nothing wrong to use GPL and not make your code available.

HTH, IANAL, Thu

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

David Thomas

11:33 a.m.

Ah, that's more than we'd been told. If that is the case, then containers is in violation of the GPL (unless they got permission to copy that code, separately), and either must obtain such permission, be relicensed, remove/replace that code. On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Clark Gaebel wrote:

...

It's not an algorithm. The source code of containers is derived from the source code of another library.

- Clark

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Vo Minh Thu wrote:

...
I'm not sure what your point is.

Re-implementing an algorithm is not a copyright infringement (nor is a propagation of the original work). Algorithms are not covered by copyright.

...
I think this is a potential problem, but, obviously, IANAL. [1]

According to the GPL:

To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without

...
would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.

and

You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force.

and of course

You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly

...
under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).

I believe that this counts as "propagation" of the original work, since it would be considered "infringement under applicable copyright law". Now,

...
wording in the GPL is a bit confusing on this point. I'm not sure if propagation requires that the BSD3 that containers is licensed under must remain in force, or the GPL on which the which is derived must remain in force. Does anyone else have better luck interpreting this?

- Clark

[1] Aside: Can we stop saying IANAL? Let's just all assume that, until proven otherwise, no one here is a lawyer. [2] Required Reading: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:00 AM, David Thomas < davidleothomas@gmail.com> wrote:

...
Right. If either of the following hold, you should be able to carry on

as

...
you were (but double check with your lawyer):

1) The algorithm is borrowed but the code was not copied. In this case, copyright doesn't cover it, and the GPL is inapplicable. (Patents could conceivably be an issue, but no more so than if it was BSD code).

2) If you are not going to be distributing the code - either it is used for internal tools or in the backend of a networked service (which the GPL does not treat as distribution, as distinct from the AGPL).

If a sizable chunk of actual code was copied, then the containers

2012/12/12 Clark Gaebel : permission, provided the package

...
...
would have to be GPL, and if you are using the library and distribute programs built with it then those programs must be GPL as well.

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Vo Minh Thu wrote:

...
2012/12/12 Dmitry Kulagin :

...
Hi Cafe,

I am faced with unpleasant problem. The lawyer of my company checked sources of containers package and found out that it refers to some

GPL-library.

...
...
Here is quote: "The algorithm is derived from Jorg Arndt's FXT library" in file Data/IntMap/Base.hs

The problem is that FXT library is GPL and thus containers package

can

...
not be considered as BSD3. And it means that it can not be used in my case (closed source software).

Is this logic actually correct and containers should be considered as GPL?

The package is widely used by other packages and the only way I see right now is to fix sources to reimplement this functionality, which is not good option.

GPL covers code, not algorithms.

Beside, you can use GPL in closed-source code. GPL forces you to make the source available when you distribute the software, but if you don't distribute the software, there is nothing wrong to use GPL and not make your code available.

HTH, IANAL, Thu

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Niklas Larsson

11:37 a.m.

2012/12/12 David Thomas :

...

Ah, that's more than we'd been told. If that is the case, then containers is in violation of the GPL (unless they got permission to copy that code, separately), and either must obtain such permission, be relicensed, remove/replace that code.

I think it's just a confusion of language, the "derived" algorithm clashes uncomfortably with the lawyerly "derived work". They are not used in the same sense. Niklas

Clark Gaebel

11:47 a.m.

Just for reference: In Data/IntMap/Base.hs highestBitMask :: Nat -> Nat highestBitMask x0 = case (x0 .|. shiftRL x0 1) of x1 -> case (x1 .|. shiftRL x1 2) of x2 -> case (x2 .|. shiftRL x2 4) of x3 -> case (x3 .|. shiftRL x3 8) of x4 -> case (x4 .|. shiftRL x4 16) of #if !(defined(__GLASGOW_HASKELL__) && WORD_SIZE_IN_BITS==32) x5 -> case (x5 .|. shiftRL x5 32) of -- for 64 bit platforms #endif x6 -> (x6 `xor` (shiftRL x6 1)) In FXT bithigh.h: static inline ulong highest_one(ulong x) // Return word where only the highest bit in x is set. // Return 0 if no bit is set. { #if defined BITS_USE_ASM if ( 0==x ) return 0; x = asm_bsr(x); return 1UL<>1); #endif // BITS_USE_ASM } And in FXT bits/bithigh-edge.h: static inline ulong highest_one_01edge(ulong x) // Return word where all bits from (including) the // highest set bit to bit 0 are set. // Return 0 if no bit is set. // // Feed the result into bit_count() to get // the index of the highest bit set. { #if defined BITS_USE_ASM if ( 0==x ) return 0; x = asm_bsr(x); return (2UL<>1; x |= x>>2; x |= x>>4; x |= x>>8; x |= x>>16; #if BITS_PER_LONG >= 64 x |= x>>32; #endif return x; #endif // BITS_USE_ASM } ===== However... I think the easy solution for this is to just find this in http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html, and cite it instead. I looked briefly and couldn't find it, but I'm almost sure it's in there. - Clark On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Niklas Larsson wrote:

...

2012/12/12 David Thomas :

...
Ah, that's more than we'd been told. If that is the case, then containers is in violation of the GPL (unless they got permission to copy that code, separately), and either must obtain such permission, be relicensed, remove/replace that code.

I think it's just a confusion of language, the "derived" algorithm clashes uncomfortably with the lawyerly "derived work". They are not used in the same sense.

Niklas

Mike Meyer

13 Dec 13 Dec

4:05 a.m.

On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 17:27:03 +0100 Vo Minh Thu wrote:

...

I'm not sure what your point is.

Re-implementing an algorithm is not a copyright infringement (nor is a propagation of the original work). Algorithms are not covered by copyright.

While algorithms aren't covered by copyright, *code* is. A translation of a copyrighted work into another language is considered a derived work of the original. If not, then simply translating a source program into some computer's binary language would release it from copyright, and it could be freely distributed. That would pretty much kill the GPL. Once someone has read an algorithm in some programming language, it opens the question of whether they are copying the algorithm or the code if they produce a copy of the algorithm. The generally accepted solution is the one taken here - a clean-room re-implementation by people who haven't read the code (ok, sort of taken here). It might be small enough to get by on a "fair use" clause. The "prior art" and "obvious" exceptions stated on this thread are for patents, and don't apply to copyright. But that's all irrelevant. The reason company lawyers object to having GPL'ed code in the company code base is that it opens them up to the possibility of a lawsuit. That the original author said it was derived from GPL'ed code was sufficient to cause at least one lawyer to believe that a case existed. http://www.mired.org/ Independent Software developer/SCM consultant, email for more information. O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org

Niklas Larsson

12 Dec 12 Dec

11:30 a.m.

...

The problem is that FXT library is GPL and thus containers package can not be considered as BSD3. And it means that it can not be used in my case (closed source software).

Is this logic actually correct and containers should be considered as GPL?

The package is widely used by other packages and the only way I see right now is to fix sources to reimplement this functionality, which is not good option.

There is no copied code from FXT (which can be said with certainty as FXT is a C library), hence the there can be copyright issue. Niklas

Niklas Larsson

11:33 a.m.

2012/12/12 Niklas Larsson :

...

...
The problem is that FXT library is GPL and thus containers package can not be considered as BSD3. And it means that it can not be used in my case (closed source software).

Is this logic actually correct and containers should be considered as GPL?

The package is widely used by other packages and the only way I see right now is to fix sources to reimplement this functionality, which is not good option.

There is no copied code from FXT (which can be said with certainty as FXT is a C library), hence the there can be copyright issue.

Niklas

Gah, I should proofread! NO copyright issue, of course.

Mike Meyer

12:23 p.m.

Niklas Larsson wrote:

...

2012/12/12 Niklas Larsson :

...
There is no copied code from FXT (which can be said with certainty as FXT is a C library), hence the there can be copyright issue.

Gah, I should proofread! NO copyright issue, of course.

Um, no. Copyright *includes* translations. A translated copy of a work is based on the original and requires copyright permissions. This makes it a modified work according to the definitions in the GPL. You're all thinking about this as if logic and the law had something in common. The relevant question isn't whether or not the GPL applies, but whether or not a case can be made that the GPL should apply. Clearly, that case can be made, so if you include the containers code without treating it as GPL'ed, you risk winding up in court. I suspect that's what the lawyer is really trying to avoid, as it would mean they'd actually have to work. -- Sent from my Android tablet with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my swyping.

Clark Gaebel

1:40 p.m.

I just did a quick derivation from http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#RoundUpPowerOf2 to get the highest bit mask, and did not reference FXT nor the containers implementation. Here is my code: highestBitMask :: Word64 -> Word64 highestBitMask x1 = let x2 = x1 .|. x1 `shiftR` 1 x3 = x2 .|. x2 `shiftR` 2 x4 = x3 .|. x3 `shiftR` 4 x5 = x4 .|. x4 `shiftR` 8 x6 = x5 .|. x5 `shiftR` 16 x7 = x6 .|. x6 `shiftR` 32 in x7 `xor` (x7 `shiftR` 1) This code is hereby released into the public domain. Problem solved. - Clark On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Mike Meyer wrote:

...

Niklas Larsson wrote:

...
2012/12/12 Niklas Larsson :

...
There is no copied code from FXT (which can be said with certainty as FXT is a C library), hence the there can be copyright issue.

Gah, I should proofread! NO copyright issue, of course.

Um, no. Copyright *includes* translations. A translated copy of a work is based on the original and requires copyright permissions. This makes it a modified work according to the definitions in the GPL.

You're all thinking about this as if logic and the law had something in common. The relevant question isn't whether or not the GPL applies, but whether or not a case can be made that the GPL should apply. Clearly, that case can be made, so if you include the containers code without treating it as GPL'ed, you risk winding up in court. I suspect that's what the lawyer is really trying to avoid, as it would mean they'd actually have to work. -- Sent from my Android tablet with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my swyping.

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Johan Tibell

1:54 p.m.

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Clark Gaebel wrote:

...

I just did a quick derivation from http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#RoundUpPowerOf2 to get the highest bit mask, and did not reference FXT nor the containers implementation. Here is my code:

highestBitMask :: Word64 -> Word64 highestBitMask x1 = let x2 = x1 .|. x1 `shiftR` 1 x3 = x2 .|. x2 `shiftR` 2 x4 = x3 .|. x3 `shiftR` 4 x5 = x4 .|. x4 `shiftR` 8 x6 = x5 .|. x5 `shiftR` 16 x7 = x6 .|. x6 `shiftR` 32 in x7 `xor` (x7 `shiftR` 1)

This code is hereby released into the public domain. Problem solved.

I will integrate this into containers later today.

Vo Minh Thu

3:06 p.m.

2012/12/12 Johan Tibell :

...

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Clark Gaebel wrote:

...
I just did a quick derivation from http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#RoundUpPowerOf2 to get the highest bit mask, and did not reference FXT nor the containers implementation. Here is my code:

highestBitMask :: Word64 -> Word64 highestBitMask x1 = let x2 = x1 .|. x1 `shiftR` 1 x3 = x2 .|. x2 `shiftR` 2 x4 = x3 .|. x3 `shiftR` 4 x5 = x4 .|. x4 `shiftR` 8 x6 = x5 .|. x5 `shiftR` 16 x7 = x6 .|. x6 `shiftR` 32 in x7 `xor` (x7 `shiftR` 1)

This code is hereby released into the public domain. Problem solved.

I will integrate this into containers later today.

Note that I think the current implementation use a series of case expression instead of a let binding, possibly to force the evaluation.

Clark Gaebel

3:09 p.m.

Possibly. I tend to trust GHC's strictness analyzer until proven otherwise, though. Feel free to optimize as necessary. - Clark On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Vo Minh Thu wrote:

...

2012/12/12 Johan Tibell :

...
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Clark Gaebel wrote:

...
I just did a quick derivation from http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#RoundUpPowerOf2 to get the highest bit mask, and did not reference FXT nor the containers implementation. Here is my code:

highestBitMask :: Word64 -> Word64 highestBitMask x1 = let x2 = x1 .|. x1 `shiftR` 1 x3 = x2 .|. x2 `shiftR` 2 x4 = x3 .|. x3 `shiftR` 4 x5 = x4 .|. x4 `shiftR` 8 x6 = x5 .|. x5 `shiftR` 16 x7 = x6 .|. x6 `shiftR` 32 in x7 `xor` (x7 `shiftR` 1)

This code is hereby released into the public domain. Problem solved.

I will integrate this into containers later today.

Note that I think the current implementation use a series of case expression instead of a let binding, possibly to force the evaluation.

Johan Tibell

5:11 p.m.

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Clark Gaebel wrote:

...

Possibly. I tend to trust GHC's strictness analyzer until proven otherwise, though. Feel free to optimize as necessary.

The GHC strictness analyzer will have no troubles with this. Since the return type is Word64, there's no place for thunks to hide as Word64 is defined as: data Word64 = W64# Word# -- on 64-bit archs or some such. Since Word# is unlifted it cannot be a pointer (to a thunk).

Dmitry Kulagin

3:18 p.m.

Clark, Johan, thank you! That looks like perfect solution to the problem. 12.12.2012, в 22:56, Johan Tibell написал(а):

...

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Clark Gaebel wrote:

...
I just did a quick derivation from http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#RoundUpPowerOf2 to get the highest bit mask, and did not reference FXT nor the containers implementation. Here is my code:

highestBitMask :: Word64 -> Word64 highestBitMask x1 = let x2 = x1 .|. x1 `shiftR` 1 x3 = x2 .|. x2 `shiftR` 2 x4 = x3 .|. x3 `shiftR` 4 x5 = x4 .|. x4 `shiftR` 8 x6 = x5 .|. x5 `shiftR` 16 x7 = x6 .|. x6 `shiftR` 32 in x7 `xor` (x7 `shiftR` 1)

This code is hereby released into the public domain. Problem solved.

I will integrate this into containers later today.

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Johan Tibell

8:15 p.m.

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Dmitry Kulagin wrote:

...

Clark, Johan, thank you! That looks like perfect solution to the problem.

Clean-room reimplementation merged and released as 0.5.2.0.

Felipe Almeida Lessa

8:24 p.m.

Crisis averted! =) On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:

...

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Dmitry Kulagin wrote:

...
Clark, Johan, thank you! That looks like perfect solution to the problem.

Clean-room reimplementation merged and released as 0.5.2.0.

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

-- Felipe.

Michael Orlitzky

8:38 p.m.

On 12/12/2012 08:15 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:

...

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Dmitry Kulagin wrote:

...
Clark, Johan, thank you! That looks like perfect solution to the problem.

Clean-room reimplementation merged and released as 0.5.2.0.

Not even a little bit clean-room: he posted the source code that he was going to reimplement like two hours earlier, and had obviously read it. Did anyone consider just asking the original author if he cares?

Johan Tibell

8:53 p.m.

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:

...

On 12/12/2012 08:15 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:

...
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Dmitry Kulagin wrote:

...
Clark, Johan, thank you! That looks like perfect solution to the problem.

Clean-room reimplementation merged and released as 0.5.2.0.

Not even a little bit clean-room: he posted the source code that he was going to reimplement like two hours earlier, and had obviously read it.

Clean-room was clearly a bit over enthusiastic. He said he didn't use the other code as a reference but instead the bithacks reference, which is public domain. I'm comfortable enough with this. I wasn't particularly worried about the prior implementation either, as it don't think (as a non-lawyer) that it will hold up as copyrightable in court due to its trivial nature and the presence of prior art (this is a standard bit-twiddling algorithm).

Clark Gaebel

10:45 p.m.

This is a silly issue. I'd be willing to testify in court that that implementation was clean. If such an issue were to ever come up, shoot me an email and I'll be there. Until then, you're going to have to take my word for it. And honestly, we do that with every bit of code we use every day. Do we really have anything except the author's word that he hasn't copied some GPL code? And, if it ever does come up and a real clean-room implementation (with someone who's never seen FXT nor this thread) needs to be done, let me know about that, too. I know lots of kids who'd jump at the chance for a practice interview question. I'll even do that now if Johan wants, but I doubt it's that useful. There are bigger fish in the sea, and you're chasing a minnow. Regards, - Clark On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:

...

...
On 12/12/2012 08:15 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:

...
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Dmitry Kulagin wrote:

...
Clark, Johan, thank you! That looks like perfect solution to the

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: problem.

...
...
Clean-room reimplementation merged and released as 0.5.2.0.

Not even a little bit clean-room: he posted the source code that he was going to reimplement like two hours earlier, and had obviously read it.

Clean-room was clearly a bit over enthusiastic. He said he didn't use the other code as a reference but instead the bithacks reference, which is public domain. I'm comfortable enough with this. I wasn't particularly worried about the prior implementation either, as it don't think (as a non-lawyer) that it will hold up as copyrightable in court due to its trivial nature and the presence of prior art (this is a standard bit-twiddling algorithm).

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Clint Adams

10:57 p.m.

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:45:48PM -0500, Clark Gaebel wrote:

...

This is a silly issue.

It certainly seems to be. If it were serious, I'd like to think that people would be attempting to get actual legal advice instead of spouting anti-copyleft FUD.

Chris Smith

13 Dec 13 Dec

2:11 a.m.

"Clint Adams" wrote:

...

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:45:48PM -0500, Clark Gaebel wrote:

...
This is a silly issue.

It certainly seems to be. If it were serious, I'd like to think that people would be attempting to get actual legal advice instead of spouting anti-copyleft FUD.

Well, actual legal advice comes from actual lawyers, who often want actual money. I'm interested in what you saw as "anti-copyleft FUD" though. That the code might be subject to the GPL and that caused problems? That's the only thing that did come from a lawyer. And it's really the only negative thing I saw about the GPL in this thread.

Clint Adams

12:34 p.m.

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:11:28PM -0800, Chris Smith wrote:

...

Well, actual legal advice comes from actual lawyers, who often want actual money.

That's true. However, haskell.org's fiscal sponsor receives pro bono legal services.

...

I'm interested in what you saw as "anti-copyleft FUD" though. That the code might be subject to the GPL and that caused problems? That's the only thing that did come from a lawyer. And it's really the only negative thing I saw about the GPL in this thread.

I may have been conflating threads, though the response to what I assume was just a lawyer asking a question seems excessive too.

Christopher Howard

1:45 p.m.

On 12/13/2012 08:34 AM, Clint Adams wrote:

...

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:11:28PM -0800, Chris Smith wrote:

That's true. However, haskell.org's fiscal sponsor receives pro bono legal services.

I may have been conflating threads, though the response to what I assume was just a lawyer asking a question seems excessive too.

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Just thought I'd mention: It is possible for anyone involved in a FOSS project to get pro bono legal advice from the SFLC, from actual lawyers who are highly familiar with the legal aspects of FOSS licenses: https://www.softwarefreedom.org quote: -------- If you are involved in a Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) project in need of legal advice, please email help@softwarefreedom.org. When seeking legal advice, please use only this address to contact us (unless you are already a client). -------- I'm not sure if they are willing to help those who are trying to /avoid/ making a free software product, but they would likely be willing to answer any generic questions about applicability of the GPLs, derived works, etc. -- frigidcode.com

Clark Gaebel

2:17 p.m.

I didn't even know that site existed. Let's add them to the thread! softwarefreedom.org, what are your opinions on what was discussed in this thread: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2012-December/105193.html Is there anything that we, as a community, should know about? Should we proceed differently? Thanks, - Clark (you might need to sign up to haskell-cafe to post. maybe use a different account?) On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Christopher Howard < christopher.howard@frigidcode.com> wrote:

...

On 12/13/2012 08:34 AM, Clint Adams wrote:

...
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:11:28PM -0800, Chris Smith wrote:

That's true. However, haskell.org's fiscal sponsor receives pro bono legal services.

I may have been conflating threads, though the response to what I assume was just a lawyer asking a question seems excessive too.

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Just thought I'd mention: It is possible for anyone involved in a FOSS project to get pro bono legal advice from the SFLC, from actual lawyers who are highly familiar with the legal aspects of FOSS licenses:

https://www.softwarefreedom.org

quote: -------- If you are involved in a Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) project in need of legal advice, please email help@softwarefreedom.org. When seeking legal advice, please use only this address to contact us (unless you are already a client). --------

I'm not sure if they are willing to help those who are trying to /avoid/ making a free software product, but they would likely be willing to answer any generic questions about applicability of the GPLs, derived works, etc.

-- frigidcode.com

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Richard O'Keefe

9:54 p.m.

On 14/12/2012, at 7:45 AM, Christopher Howard wrote:

...

Just thought I'd mention: It is possible for anyone involved in a FOSS project to get pro bono legal advice from the SFLC, from actual lawyers who are highly familiar with the legal aspects of FOSS licenses:

https://www.softwarefreedom.org

Intimately familiar with New Zealand law, are they?

Christopher Howard

10:44 p.m.

On 12/13/2012 05:54 PM, Richard O'Keefe wrote:

...

On 14/12/2012, at 7:45 AM, Christopher Howard wrote:

Intimately familiar with New Zealand law, are they?

I couldn't say anything about that, specifically. However, SFLC has an international outreach. From 2011 SFLC news: quote: -------- We are proud to announce a new position at the Software Freedom Law Center: Director of International Programs. Over the past few years SFLC has become an increasingly International organization, working with the European Commission, launching SFLC India, and consulting with governments around the world on issues of free software licensing, policy, and use. Mishi Choudhary, counsel at SFLC and head of SFLC India, has always been at the heart of this work so it is only fitting that she is stepping up to fill the new position. Congratulations to Ms. Choudhary and we all look forward to a stronger international presence ahead. ----- -- frigidcode.com

Ketil Malde

15 Dec 15 Dec

8:04 a.m.

Clark Gaebel writes:

...

I just did a quick derivation from http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#RoundUpPowerOf2

A copyrighted work, you say?

...

to get the highest bit mask, and did not reference FXT nor the containers implementation. Here is my code:

If copyright follows reimplementations of algorithms from other programs (because they are considered "translations" of that program), then surely it must also follow reimplementation from copyrighted documentation? I think this is wrong, copyright does not cover algorithms, and reverse engineering is not literary translation. The implications of anything else would be draconian, simply documenting a program would be a breach of its copyright, for instance, and Tanenbaum would hold the copyright to Linux. But in a court of law, anything is possible. -k

Ketil Malde

8:18 a.m.

Ketil Malde writes:

...

...
I just did a quick derivation from http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#RoundUpPowerOf2

...

A copyrighted work, you say?

Whoops, public domain, according to itself. Of course, there's no way to tell if the author read similar copyrighted programs, but maybe you'll get off easier from claimin the infringement was not wilful? (BTW, the concept Public Domain isn't recognized in some jurisdictions) -k

Mike Meyer

11:29 a.m.

Ketil Malde wrote:

...

Clark Gaebel writes:

...
I just did a quick derivation from http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#RoundUpPowerOf2 A copyrighted work, you say?

The work is copyrighted, the snippets are placed in the placed in the public domain. This is old hat - you can copyright a collection of non-copyrightable objects.

...

I think this is wrong, copyright does not cover algorithms, and reverse engineering is not literary translation.

As it's commonly understood, reverse engineering doesn't involve looking at the code. That's why it's called "reverse engineering" instead of "copying." If you never had access to the code, you couldn't have copied it. Of course, you can't produce a literary translation of it, either.

...

The implications of anything else would be draconian

Calling the current state of copyright law in the US draconian might be going a little far. But only a little.

...

simply documenting a program would be a breach of its copyright

Documenting code has run into copyright issue before. That's why *both* volumes of the Lion's book were pulled from publication. Documenting codes behavior as a black box or how you use it isn't a problem. If you say "function F finds the highest one it in it's argument" or "call f(x) to find the highest one bit in x" and I then write a function f that behaves that way, there can't have been a copyright violation, because I never saw the source to f. If you *give* me that source, and I translate the code to another language, then I've created a derived work, which means copyright law applies. If you give me the source to f, and I write a function that does the same thing - then I may or may not have copied it. This means I *could* wind up in court over the thing, which is exactly the possibility that the lawyer is trying to avoid.

...

Tanenbaum would hold the copyright to Linux.

Only if Tanenbaum documented the internal behavior of Linux before it was written. -- Sent from my Android tablet with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my swyping.

Niklas Larsson

11:49 a.m.

2012/12/15 Mike Meyer :

...

Only if Tanenbaum documented the internal behavior of Linux before it was written.

Tannenbaum wrote Minix, the operating system that Linus used (and hacked on) before he did Linux. Minix contained lots of features that was reimplemented in Linux. Same thing with Stallman, do you think he never saw the Unix sources? Niklas

Mike Meyer

12:42 p.m.

Niklas Larsson wrote:

...

2012/12/15 Mike Meyer :

...
Only if Tanenbaum documented the internal behavior of Linux before it was written. Tannenbaum wrote Minix, the operating system that Linus used (and hacked on) before he did Linux. Minix contained lots of features that was reimplemented in Linux.

Ah, Minix isn't documentation. And it has a radically different architecture than either Linux or Unix (which it copied features from). That makes a successful lawsuit unlikely should Tanenbaum pursue one - but you can't say for certain until after a court rules on it. Which is the bottom line in such cases: if the copyright holder doesn't care, it'll never go to court, so there isn't an infringement.

...

Same thing with Stallman, do you think he never saw the Unix sources?

Did he ever write anything that was copied from Unix? The Hurd used a completely different architecture than Unix. Emacs predated Unix. By the time he got around to writing a c compiler, there were more from people other than AT&T than from AT&T. And gcc drew more from the lisp community than from the Unix compilers. -- Sent from my Android tablet with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my swyping.

Ketil Malde

17 Dec 17 Dec

3:38 a.m.

Mike Meyer writes:

...

Niklas Larsson wrote:

...
2012/12/15 Mike Meyer :

...
Only if Tanenbaum documented the internal behavior of Linux before it was written.

...

...
Tannenbaum wrote Minix, the operating system that Linus used (and hacked on) before he did Linux. Minix contained lots of features that was reimplemented in Linux.

...

Ah, Minix isn't documentation. And it has a radically different architecture

The point is that Linux read the source code to Minix before implementing similar things - quite likely using the same algorithms, for instance. So if containers is a "translation" of FXT, then surely Linux is a "translation" of Minix.

...

That makes a successful lawsuit unlikely

The point of the point is that neither of these are translations of literary works, there is no precedence for considering them as such, and that reading somebody's work (whether literary or source code) before writing one's own does not imply that the 'somebody' will hold any rights to the subsequent work. "Translations" in software is what compilers do, not reimplementing specific algorithms.

...

it'll never go to court, so there isn't an infringement.

Wot? -k

Chris Smith

5 a.m.

"Ketil Malde" wrote:

...

The point of the point is that neither of these are translations of literary works, there is no precedence for considering them as such, and that reading somebody's work (whether literary or source code) before writing one's own does not imply that the 'somebody' will hold any rights to the subsequent work.

So IANAL, but I do have an amateur interest in copyright law. The debate over the word "translation" is completely irrelevant. The important point is whether it is a "derived work". That phrase certainly includes more than mere translation. For example, it includes writing fiction that's set in the same fantasy universe or HHS the same characters as another author's works. It also includes making videos with someone else's music playing in the background. If you create a derived work, then the author of the original definitely has rights to it, regardless of whether it is a mere translation. That's also why the word "derived" in a comment was particularly Dacey to the legal staff and probably caused them to overreact in this case. The defense in the case of software is to say that the part that was copied was not a work of authorship in the sense that, say, a fiction character is. This is generally not a hard case to win, since courts see computer software as dominated by its practical function. But if you copied something that was clearly a matter of expression and not related to the function of the software, you could very well be creating a derived work over which the original author could assert control. That said, I agree that in this particular case it's very unlikely that the original author could have won an infringement case. I just balked a little at the statements about translation, which was really just an example.

Mike Meyer

10:30 a.m.

Ketil Malde wrote:

...

Mike Meyer writes:

...
Niklas Larsson wrote:

...
2012/12/15 Mike Meyer :

...
Only if Tanenbaum documented the internal behavior of Linux before it was written. Tannenbaum wrote Minix, the operating system that Linus used (and hacked on) before he did Linux. Minix contained lots of features that was reimplemented in Linux. Ah, Minix isn't documentation. And it has a radically different architecture The point is that Linux read the source code to Minix before implementing similar things - quite likely using the same algorithms, for instance. So if containers is a "translation" of FXT, then surely Linux is a "translation" of Minix.

Since they are both C, the concept of "translation" doesn't enter into that case at all. I never said that containers was a translation of FXT. I said that translations are considered to be derived work requiring permission to copy. This is deeply embedded in copyright law, and the GPL *depends* on it working for software. Otherwise, a distribution of GPL' d software translated to another language (say as asm from the compiler, or a linkable object, or even an executable) wouldn't be a derivative work and could be distributed without having to obey the license. The point is that containers being in haskell isn't a defense against copyright violation. It doesn't mean that it *is* a translation, merely that it might be. That the author of containers said it was "derived" from FXT opens the possibility that his version is actually GPL'ed, so using it opens up the possibility of a lawsuit. It may not stand up in court, but the lawyer objecting is trying to avoid just that possibility.

...

...
That makes a successful lawsuit unlikely The point of the point is that neither of these are translations of literary works, there is no precedence for considering them as such,

Actually, there *is* a precedent for considering them such. The clean-room implementations of the IBM PC bios were done because a judge ruled that translating from asm to binary was an infringing copy. If you have a precedent that translating from one programming language to another is *not* the creation of a derived work, I'd be interested in hearing about it. Without such a precedent, then a case can be made that such a translation is a derived work (and you're the only person I've ever heard claim otherwise) which opens up the possibility of a lawsuit, which is what the problem is.

...

and that reading somebody's work (whether literary or source code) before writing one's own does not imply that the 'somebody' will hold any rights to the subsequent work.

This is correct. Reading a copyrighted work does not prove that some subsequent creation is a copy of that work. It does, however, make it *possible* that such a work is a copy and needs the appropriate permissions.

...

"Translations" in software is what compilers do, not reimplementing specific algorithms.

"Translation" in a copyright case is a term of law, and has *nothing* to do with the behavior of compilers (other than the precedent that what a compiler does is considered a translation for copyright purposes). Reimplementing an algorithm may or may not be a copyright violation. Depends on whether or not the reimplementation involved creation of a work derived (in the legal sense) from the original. Access to the original is required for that to happen. The two being in the same language is *not* required for that to happen. Access to the original and working in the same language is *not* sufficient for that to happen.

...

...
it'll never go to court, so there isn't an infringement.

Tannenbaum isn't going to sue Linus. So either he doesn't believe there is an infringement (I suspect this is likely, as he has had access the source and would probably have at least said something if he thought there was an infringement) or doesn't care enough to go to court. Until a judge tells Linus he's infringing, he isn't. -- Sent from my Android tablet with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my swyping.

Amit Levy

19 Dec 19 Dec

1:06 p.m.

On Dec 17, 2012, at 10:30 AM, Mike Meyer wrote:

...

Ketil Malde wrote:

...
Mike Meyer writes:

...
Niklas Larsson wrote:

...
2012/12/15 Mike Meyer :

...
Only if Tanenbaum documented the internal behavior of Linux before it was written. Tannenbaum wrote Minix, the operating system that Linus used (and hacked on) before he did Linux. Minix contained lots of features that was reimplemented in Linux. Ah, Minix isn't documentation. And it has a radically different architecture The point is that Linux read the source code to Minix before implementing similar things - quite likely using the same algorithms, for instance. So if containers is a "translation" of FXT, then surely Linux is a "translation" of Minix.

Since they are both C, the concept of "translation" doesn't enter into that case at all.

I never said that containers was a translation of FXT. I said that translations are considered to be derived work requiring permission to copy. This is deeply embedded in copyright law, and the GPL *depends* on it working for software. Otherwise, a distribution of GPL' d software translated to another language (say as asm from the compiler, or a linkable object, or even an executable) wouldn't be a derivative work and could be distributed without having to obey the license.

The point is that containers being in haskell isn't a defense against copyright violation. It doesn't mean that it *is* a translation, merely that it might be. That the author of containers said it was "derived" from FXT opens the possibility that his version is actually GPL'ed, so using it opens up the possibility of a lawsuit. It may not stand up in court, but the lawyer objecting is trying to avoid just that possibility.

...
...
That makes a successful lawsuit unlikely The point of the point is that neither of these are translations of literary works, there is no precedence for considering them as such,

Actually, there *is* a precedent for considering them such. The clean-room implementations of the IBM PC bios were done because a judge ruled that translating from asm to binary was an infringing copy.

If you have a precedent that translating from one programming language to another is *not* the creation of a derived work, I'd be interested in hearing about it. Without such a precedent, then a case can be made that such a translation is a derived work (and you're the only person I've ever heard claim otherwise) which opens up the possibility of a lawsuit, which is what the problem is.

...
and that reading somebody's work (whether literary or source code) before writing one's own does not imply that the 'somebody' will hold any rights to the subsequent work.

This is correct. Reading a copyrighted work does not prove that some subsequent creation is a copy of that work. It does, however, make it *possible* that such a work is a copy and needs the appropriate permissions.

...
"Translations" in software is what compilers do, not reimplementing specific algorithms.

"Translation" in a copyright case is a term of law, and has *nothing* to do with the behavior of compilers (other than the precedent that what a compiler does is considered a translation for copyright purposes).

Reimplementing an algorithm may or may not be a copyright violation. Depends on whether or not the reimplementation involved creation of a work derived (in the legal sense) from the original. Access to the original is required for that to happen. The two being in the same language is *not* required for that to happen. Access to the original and working in the same language is *not* sufficient for that to happen.

...
...
it'll never go to court, so there isn't an infringement.

Tannenbaum isn't going to sue Linus. So either he doesn't believe there is an infringement (I suspect this is likely, as he has had access the source and would probably have at least said something if he thought there was an infringement) or doesn't care enough to go to court. Until a judge tells Linus he's infringing, he isn't.

This is quite a digression from the topic of the thread, but it turns out Tennenbaum has actually stated publicly that he does not consider Linux to be copied from Minix at all: (from http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/) "MINIX had clearly had a huge influence on Linux in many ways, from the layout of the file system to the names in the source tree, but I didn't think Linus had used any of my code. Linus also used MINIX as his development platform initially, but there was nothing wrong with that. He asked if I objected to that and I said no, I didn't, people were free to use it as they wished for noncommercial purposes. Later MINIX was released under the Berkeley license, which freed it up for all purposes."

...

-- Sent from my Android tablet with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my swyping.

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Ketil Malde

17 Dec 17 Dec

3:52 a.m.

Mike Meyer writes:

...

As it's commonly understood, reverse engineering doesn't involve looking at the code.

I guess I should make it clear that I don't use it in the strict sense - I would call that "clean-room reverse engineering". (I'm not sure which is the most "commonly understood" meaning, I think Wikipedia supports both interpretations)

...

That's why it's called "reverse engineering" instead of "copying."

I mean the process of reimplementing specific functionality from another system, with or without knowledge of implementation details. I would use "copying" to mean verbatim cut-and-pasting, which is something else. In particular when copyright is concerned, I believe that verbatim copying in many cases will require a license to the original work, but merly examining the original work to make use of algorithms, tricks, and structures from it will not. I suspect there's nothing magical about source code, if I extract a component (algorithm or data structure, say) from a program and use it in my own program, I'm not convinced it matters if I extract it from object code, source code, or documentation - they're all copyrighted works, and could be interpreted as translations of the same work. I could be wrong about that, though. -k

Mike Meyer

10:45 a.m.

Ketil Malde wrote:

...

In particular when copyright is concerned, I believe that verbatim copying in many cases will require a license to the original work, but merly examining the original work to make use of algorithms, tricks, and structures from it will not.

If you don't actually copy any of the text in the latter case, that would be correct. But there's an incredible amount of grey between those two extremes of black and white, and it's possible that you've unintentionally recreated significant bits of the original. The Oracle/Google lawsuit was all about those shades of grey - some of the API's in Dalvik were implemented by people who had read the Java sources. Oracle claimed as much as possible was derivative, Google that none of it was. The judge ruled that some uses were infringing and some uses were not. This was a technically literate judge - he ruled that one of the cases was non-infringing because he could trivially implement the function in Java himself. The lawyer who pointed out the possible infringement here isn't really worried about losing such a lawsuit - there are lots of ways to deal with that short of actually releasing any sources they consider proprietary. They want to avoid the lawsuit *at all*, as that will almost certainly be more expensive than losing it. At least, that's what I hear from clients who ask me not to include GPL'ed software.

Clark Gaebel

1:47 p.m.

So I heard back from softwarefreedom.org, and they're looking for a representative from haskell.org to talk to them, as they want to avoid conflict-of-interests with other clients. Does anyone with any "official status" want to talk to real lawyers about this issue, then let the list know of anything interesting that was said? Let me know. - Clark On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Mike Meyer wrote:

...

Ketil Malde wrote:

...
In particular when copyright is concerned, I believe that verbatim copying in many cases will require a license to the original work, but merly examining the original work to make use of algorithms, tricks, and structures from it will not.

If you don't actually copy any of the text in the latter case, that would be correct. But there's an incredible amount of grey between those two extremes of black and white, and it's possible that you've unintentionally recreated significant bits of the original.

The Oracle/Google lawsuit was all about those shades of grey - some of the API's in Dalvik were implemented by people who had read the Java sources. Oracle claimed as much as possible was derivative, Google that none of it was. The judge ruled that some uses were infringing and some uses were not. This was a technically literate judge - he ruled that one of the cases was non-infringing because he could trivially implement the function in Java himself.

The lawyer who pointed out the possible infringement here isn't really worried about losing such a lawsuit - there are lots of ways to deal with that short of actually releasing any sources they consider proprietary. They want to avoid the lawsuit *at all*, as that will almost certainly be more expensive than losing it. At least, that's what I hear from clients who ask me not to include GPL'ed software.

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Michael Orlitzky

7:27 p.m.

On 12/17/2012 01:47 PM, Clark Gaebel wrote:

...

Does anyone ... want to talk to real lawyers ...

No. This is absurd. If anyone cares, email the original author and explain the situation. Ask if he's cool with the reimplemented version. Chances are he'll say "yeah," and we've just solved the problem like adults.

Mike Meyer

11:57 a.m.

On 12/17/12, Ketil Malde wrote:

...

I would use "copying" to mean verbatim cut-and-pasting, which is something else.

I feel I should point out that, while that's currently a common definition of "copying", it's not the legal definition. Copyright law predates the ability to mechanically create copies of a work. The closest you could come was the printing press, which started with what was at the time a handmade mirror image of the work you were going to print copies of. Back then, the only way to create a copy of a printed page (or anything else that wasn't created with the express purpose of being duplicated) was to read the original, and transcribe it into a copy. There was no "cut-n-paste" or "copy command" - just reading and creating another copy by hand. Changes made along the way that depended on the original - adding illustrations or illuminations, setting it to music, re-arranging it into a script for a play, or translating it to another language - were all considered derived works, and hence infringing. IANAL, but I've been studying copyright law since before the US signed the Berne treaty. Generally, copyright law in the US has been getting stricter, not more permissive - largely because the only people who cared were the large copyright holders. In general, new media brought under the purview of copyright is treated as strictly as the law can be interpreted. In the US, most radio stations pay a license fee in order to play music. Bars and restaurants (and even the Girl Scouts!) are required to pay a license fee for public performances if they play live or recorded music. If you buy media capable of recording music or video, part of the cost is used to compensate the copyright holders of the presumably infringing copies you're going to make onto them. If I took a picture of my living room, I'd technically be in violation of a slew of copyrights (images of the statuary on the mantelpiece, paintings hanging on the wall, etc.) but chances are that nobody would care unless I included images from a FOX television show. Personally, I think this is silly, but it's the law.

David Thomas

12 Dec 12 Dec

11:42 a.m.

This may be overconfident - how does copyright law deal with translations in literature? Still, it certainly makes infringement less likely, and the earlier explicit statement that code was copied likely the result of confusion. On Dec 12, 2012 8:33 AM, "Niklas Larsson" wrote:

...

...
The problem is that FXT library is GPL and thus containers package can not be considered as BSD3. And it means that it can not be used in my case (closed source software).

Is this logic actually correct and containers should be considered as GPL?

The package is widely used by other packages and the only way I see right now is to fix sources to reimplement this functionality, which is not good option.

There is no copied code from FXT (which can be said with certainty as FXT is a C library), hence the there can be copyright issue.

Niklas

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

4535

Age (days ago)

4542

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

45 comments

15 participants

participants (15)

Amit Levy
Chris Smith
Christopher Howard
Clark Gaebel
Clint Adams
David Thomas
Dmitry Kulagin
Felipe Almeida Lessa
Johan Tibell
Ketil Malde
Michael Orlitzky
Mike Meyer
Niklas Larsson
Richard O'Keefe
Vo Minh Thu