Hey Walter/anyone?

Considering that my Walnut 2.x engine performs much the same functionality as DMDScript, but that Walnut 2.x is written significantly differently on a structural level...

DMDScript is a GPL v1 engine, and Walnut 2.x is a new BSD engine.

When I fill in the function stubs for, for example, Number_prototype_toFixed, am I allowed to examine Walter's DMDScript source code, write something similar (but obviously not the same) and still call it new BSD?

What requirements are there to do such a thing?

Dan wrote:
> Hey Walter/anyone?
> 
> Considering that my Walnut 2.x engine performs much the same functionality as DMDScript, but that Walnut 2.x is written significantly differently on a structural level...
> 
> DMDScript is a GPL v1 engine, and Walnut 2.x is a new BSD engine.
> 
> When I fill in the function stubs for, for example, Number_prototype_toFixed, am I allowed to examine Walter's DMDScript source code, write something similar (but obviously not the same) and still call it new BSD?
> 
> What requirements are there to do such a thing?

This is one of many distinctions between copyright and patent.

Copyright covers the RIGHT to COPY. NOTHING ELSE. Unless you signed a license or contract specifying that you can't use it as a reference, you can.

 - Gregor Richards

Dan wrote:
> Hey Walter/anyone?
> 
> Considering that my Walnut 2.x engine performs much the same functionality as DMDScript, but that Walnut 2.x is written significantly differently on a structural level...
> 
> DMDScript is a GPL v1 engine, and Walnut 2.x is a new BSD engine.
> 
> When I fill in the function stubs for, for example, Number_prototype_toFixed, am I allowed to examine Walter's DMDScript source code, write something similar (but obviously not the same) and still call it new BSD?

No. Doing so would make it a 'derivative work'.

> What requirements are there to do such a thing?

If you're going to clone a function, you can't use someone else's copyrighted code as a guide. Even just looking at it could cause 'taint', which is why I never look at or work on gcc.

You need to write your own from scratch - or buy a license <g>.

Gregor Richards wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> Hey Walter/anyone?
>>
>> Considering that my Walnut 2.x engine performs much the same functionality as DMDScript, but that Walnut 2.x is written significantly differently on a structural level...
>>
>> DMDScript is a GPL v1 engine, and Walnut 2.x is a new BSD engine.
>>
>> When I fill in the function stubs for, for example, Number_prototype_toFixed, am I allowed to examine Walter's DMDScript source code, write something similar (but obviously not the same) and still call it new BSD?
>>
>> What requirements are there to do such a thing?
> 
> This is one of many distinctions between copyright and patent.
> 
> Copyright covers the RIGHT to COPY. NOTHING ELSE. Unless you signed a license or contract specifying that you can't use it as a reference, you can.

I believe this is incorrect. Copyrights also cover 'derivative works'. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

Would buying a license allow him to copy the code

Walter Bright wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> Hey Walter/anyone?
>>
>> Considering that my Walnut 2.x engine performs much the same functionality as DMDScript, but that Walnut 2.x is written significantly differently on a structural level...
>>
>> DMDScript is a GPL v1 engine, and Walnut 2.x is a new BSD engine.
>>
>> When I fill in the function stubs for, for example, Number_prototype_toFixed, am I allowed to examine Walter's DMDScript source code, write something similar (but obviously not the same) and still call it new BSD?
> 
> No. Doing so would make it a 'derivative work'.
> 
>> What requirements are there to do such a thing?
> 
> If you're going to clone a function, you can't use someone else's copyrighted code as a guide. Even just looking at it could cause 'taint', which is why I never look at or work on gcc.
> 
> You need to write your own from scratch - or buy a license <g>.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Gregor Richards wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> Hey Walter/anyone?
>>>
>>> Considering that my Walnut 2.x engine performs much the same functionality as DMDScript, but that Walnut 2.x is written significantly differently on a structural level...
>>>
>>> DMDScript is a GPL v1 engine, and Walnut 2.x is a new BSD engine.
>>>
>>> When I fill in the function stubs for, for example, Number_prototype_toFixed, am I allowed to examine Walter's DMDScript source code, write something similar (but obviously not the same) and still call it new BSD?
>>>
>>> What requirements are there to do such a thing?
>>
>> This is one of many distinctions between copyright and patent.
>>
>> Copyright covers the RIGHT to COPY. NOTHING ELSE. Unless you signed a license or contract specifying that you can't use it as a reference, you can.
> 
> I believe this is incorrect. Copyrights also cover 'derivative works'. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

"In copyright law, a derivative work is an artistic creation that includes major, basic copyrighted aspects of an original, previously created first work."

Including major copyrighted aspects of an original, previously created work is by definition copying. My very simple definition, while not very nuanced, is accurate :)

 - Gregor Richards

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:56:04 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

> Dan wrote:
>> Hey Walter/anyone?
>> 
>> Considering that my Walnut 2.x engine performs much the same functionality as DMDScript, but that Walnut 2.x is written significantly differently on a structural level...
>> 
>> DMDScript is a GPL v1 engine, and Walnut 2.x is a new BSD engine.
>> 
>> When I fill in the function stubs for, for example, Number_prototype_toFixed, am I allowed to examine Walter's DMDScript source code, write something similar (but obviously not the same) and still call it new BSD?
> 
> No. Doing so would make it a 'derivative work'.
> 
>> What requirements are there to do such a thing?
> 
> If you're going to clone a function, you can't use someone else's copyrighted code as a guide. Even just looking at it could cause 'taint', which is why I never look at or work on gcc.
> 
> You need to write your own from scratch - or buy a license <g>.

I have occasionally wondered about the situation in which one looks at code "X" and thinks 'This is horrible. I can do better' and then goes on to write "Y", which looks nothing like "X" but was developed with the knowledge of "X". Now, if "X" and "Y" can be used interchangeably to solve the same problem, is "Y" deemed to have been derived from "X"?

In other words, is the motive of the author a factor? In the case above, "X" and "Y" are totally dissimilar but "Y" was written /because/ the author knew the details of "X". If the author did not know "X" but still wrote "Y", could it be a derived work?

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Justice for David Hicks!"
4/04/2007 10:09:03 AM

Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:56:04 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>> Dan wrote:
>>> Hey Walter/anyone?
>>>
>>> Considering that my Walnut 2.x engine performs much the same functionality as DMDScript, but that Walnut 2.x is written significantly differently on a structural level...
>>>
>>> DMDScript is a GPL v1 engine, and Walnut 2.x is a new BSD engine.
>>>
>>> When I fill in the function stubs for, for example, Number_prototype_toFixed, am I allowed to examine Walter's DMDScript source code, write something similar (but obviously not the same) and still call it new BSD?
>> No. Doing so would make it a 'derivative work'.
>>
>>> What requirements are there to do such a thing?
>> If you're going to clone a function, you can't use someone else's copyrighted code as a guide. Even just looking at it could cause 'taint', which is why I never look at or work on gcc.
>>
>> You need to write your own from scratch - or buy a license <g>.
> 
> I have occasionally wondered about the situation in which one looks at code "X" and thinks 'This is horrible. I can do better' and then goes on to write "Y", which looks nothing like "X" but was developed with the knowledge of "X". Now, if "X" and "Y" can be used interchangeably to solve the same problem, is "Y" deemed to have been derived from "X"?
> 
> In other words, is the motive of the author a factor? In the case above, "X" and "Y" are totally dissimilar but "Y" was written /because/ the author knew the details of "X". If the author did not know "X" but still wrote "Y", could it be a derived work?
> 

Ain't lawyerin' grand?

BA

Charlie wrote:
> Would buying a license allow him to copy the code

For the regular license, yes, but that doesn't allow redistribution of source code. He'd have to email me and we could work something out.

Note that if his code is GPL'd, he can do what he wants with it consistent with the GPL, which includes copying and redistributing source.

Gregor Richards wrote:
> Including major copyrighted aspects of an original, previously created work is by definition copying. My very simple definition, while not very nuanced, is accurate :)

Using the original implementation as a guide to making a clone is making a derivative work. I'm not a lawyer, but I have been grilled and basted by well-paid lawyers doing their due diligence about these things.