Don't take my words for words of a lawyer: /opinion
I personally think, that something like a general algorithm cannot be limited off and away from usage in society. I don't know about the law specifics, but if there was a law against rewriting an algorithm, then it would be a quite stupid law, as it would only serve to hinder progress of society. However, as we all know the law is rarely written by experts. A lot of stupid things are in there. It does not always take the good of society into account and sometimes is even biased towards protecting the ones in power and with financial resources. So it could very well be, that this is one of the cases, where the law is stupid, or one, where it depends on what kind of day the judge has or how well the judge knows software and code. Furthermore I think, that rewriting the algorithm into a purely functional one is often a significant work on its own and definitely adding enough of ones own work to make it a separate thing in total. /opinion end On 6/28/21 11:38 PM, Tim Meehan wrote: > Say for instance, I have found an algorithm for scalar function > minimization on a website, written in C. It is posted with a license for > use. If I write something based on this hypothetical code, is it then > clearly also licensed in the same manner? > > Granted, I know that this is guile-user and not guile-lawyer, but in many > cases the transformation from procedural to functional is kind of a radical > re-imagining. I usually try to contact the people and ask them directly, > but was wondering what was the general consensus in cases where the > original author did not answer? -- repositories: https://notabug.org/ZelphirKaltstahl
