Fredrik Lundh wrote: > Mathias Panzenboeck wrote: > >> But the question is: *IS* this derived work? I mean, it's not copied code. >> It's the same hashing-logic, which I learned by watching pythons code. > > given that it's only a few lines of code, and there's hardly any other > way to write those lines if you want to implement the same algorithm, > I'd say it falls under "fair use". crediting the Python developers in > the source code should be good enough.
If you'll forgive my pedantry, that's not "fair use," but simply the use of material that cannot be copyrighted by itself (in many jursidictions, at least) because it is so short, obvious, non-creative, etc. A good overview of fair use is here: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html IANAL. TINLA. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
