On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, George Spelvin wrote: > > I don't think this trick of making source code textually different from > > another work while still intimately mimicking the same structure entitles > > you to any copyright (or non copyright) claims over that other work. I > > certainly wouldn't bet any dime for this standing up in court. > > <div type="legal digression"> > Actually, I would. I did a lot more than text search and replace; > I re-implemented it from FIPS 180-2 (work of U.S. government, no copyright) > and then merged in the *ideas* from the mailing list. > > (And from elsewhere; the idea of a five-round macro is from Brian Gladman.) > > Remember, to the extent that something is *functional*, it is not > copyrightable; copyright only covers the non-functional expressive bits. > The vast majority of that code is simply required by the standard, > or the desired calling interface. > > For a large portion of the rest, remember that standard programming > conventions (e.g. brace style, macro names IN CAPS, etc.) that's also > non-copyrightable "scene a faire" material. > > It's well established that paraphrasing a recipe avoids copyright; > the proportions and treatment of the ingredients is not copyrightable. > > For more details, see the extensive coverage of the NEC v. Intel decision > (1989) regarding the firmware for NEC's 8086-clone V20 microprocessor. > It was found non-infringing despite non-clean-room implementation and > substantial similarities. > </div> Whatever. NEC and Intel were certainly commercial competitors. They were far from being friends. So if you feel like having too many friends then just go ahead with that stance. > As for politeness, that's exactly why I did post it and solicit > objections. You said: |It uses Linus's and Artur's performance ideas, and some of Linus' macro |ideas (in the rotate implementation), but tries to be textually |different. Is there anything recognizable that anyone cares to clam |copyright to? the "try to be textually different" in order to ask for "anything recognizable that anyone cares to clam copyright to" is what I find dubious. > The purpose of the rewrite is to avoid having to make > pessimistic assumptions about people who don't respond. > > I suppose I should have made that request clearer: > Is there anyone who claims copyright on anything here? > Or would just like credit? > If so, are you willing to donate it to the public domain? I think this is much nicer to everyone involved. As far as I'm concerned, I'm OK with giving any small copyright I might have in this SHA1 implementation, if any, to the public domain. Credits are always nice. Nicolas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html