copyright questions

copyright questions

[Leo Brewin]

Greetings,

I have ported some parts of Lapack & Blas to Ada2012 and I'd like to make the code available for public use. But before I release the code I'd like to canvas your opinions on how I should assign the copyright. The original copyright licence (from the Fortran sources) must be included, that much is clear. But I have made some small changes forced upon me by the transition from Fortran to Ada. Do I need to add a separate copyright notice to this Ada version? 

I don't want to get into the debate about the right and wrongs of the various copyright licences (GPL vs. BSD) or the politics of copyright law. I just want to ensure that no third parties can later claim copyright of my work (as limited as it is, it's just a port of the hard work of the original Lapack & Blas team, so there is little intellectual content in my contribution). If someone could point me to an example (of a copyright license for a ported code) that would be a start.

Just to be clear, this is a port to Ada, not a set of bindings to the Fortran code.

Cheers,
Leo

Re: copyright questions

[sbelmont700]

On Sunday, August 12, 2012 8:46:29 AM UTC-4, Leo Brewin wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> 
> 
> I have ported some parts of Lapack & Blas to Ada2012 and I'd like to make the code available for public use. But before I release the code I'd like to canvas your opinions on how I should assign the copyright. The original copyright licence (from the Fortran sources) must be included, that much is clear. But I have made some small changes forced upon me by the transition from Fortran to Ada. Do I need to add a separate copyright notice to this Ada version? 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to get into the debate about the right and wrongs of the various copyright licences (GPL vs. BSD) or the politics of copyright law. I just want to ensure that no third parties can later claim copyright of my work (as limited as it is, it's just a port of the hard work of the original Lapack & Blas team, so there is little intellectual content in my contribution). If someone could point me to an example (of a copyright license for a ported code) that would be a start.
> 

A translation of a copyrighted work is a derivative work, so (assuming you live in the US) anything new your contribute is automatically copyrighted as well (*just* what you contribute).  Essentially, someone would need your permission to distribute copies of your code, and you would need permission from the authors of LAPACK (which you already have, conditionally, via the license).

Re: copyright questions

[Vasiliy Molostov]

Leo Brewin <leo.brewin@internode.on.net> писал(а) в своём письме Sun, 12  
Aug 2012 16:46:29 +0400:

> Greetings,
>
> I have ported some parts of Lapack & Blas to Ada2012 and I'd like to  
> make the code available for public use. But before I release the code  
> I'd like to canvas your opinions on how I should assign the copyright.  
> The original copyright licence (from the Fortran sources) must be  
> included, that much is clear. But I have made some small changes forced  
> upon me by the transition from Fortran to Ada. Do I need to add a  
> separate copyright notice to this Ada version?
>
> I don't want to get into the debate about the right and wrongs of the  
> various copyright licences (GPL vs. BSD) or the politics of copyright  
> law. I just want to ensure that no third parties can later claim  
> copyright of my work (as limited as it is, it's just a port of the hard  
> work of the original Lapack & Blas team, so there is little intellectual  
> content in my contribution). If someone could point me to an example (of  
> a copyright license for a ported code) that would be a start.
>
> Just to be clear, this is a port to Ada, not a set of bindings to the  
> Fortran code.

Since copyright covers fixed form writings and your version is a new
writing you might want to supply your own licence.

How fortran version relates to Ada you might want to ask fortran version  
author, since some code fragments probably stay unchanged.

Also, fortran licence covers fortran sources, so I dont think that  
inclusion of this one relates to Ada sources somehow.

-- 
Написано в почтовом клиенте браузера Opera: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Re: copyright questions

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sun, 12 Aug 2012 18:20:42 +0200, Vasiliy Molostov <molostoff@gmail.com>  
a écrit:

> Leo Brewin <leo.brewin@internode.on.net> писал(а) в своём письме Sun, 12  
> Aug 2012 16:46:29 +0400:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I have ported some parts of Lapack & Blas to Ada2012 and I'd like to  
>> make the code available for public use. But before I release the code  
>> I'd like to canvas your opinions on how I should assign the copyright.  
>> The original copyright licence (from the Fortran sources) must be  
>> included, that much is clear. But I have made some small changes forced  
>> upon me by the transition from Fortran to Ada. Do I need to add a  
>> separate copyright notice to this Ada version?
>>
>> I don't want to get into the debate about the right and wrongs of the  
>> various copyright licences (GPL vs. BSD) or the politics of copyright  
>> law. I just want to ensure that no third parties can later claim  
>> copyright of my work (as limited as it is, it's just a port of the hard  
>> work of the original Lapack & Blas team, so there is little  
>> intellectual content in my contribution). If someone could point me to  
>> an example (of a copyright license for a ported code) that would be a  
>> start.
>>
>> Just to be clear, this is a port to Ada, not a set of bindings to the  
>> Fortran code.
>
> Since *copyright covers fixed form writings* and your version is a new
> writing you might want to supply your own licence.

Is this a personal assumption or an assertion you know some references  
about?


-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University

Re: copyright questions

[Vasiliy Molostov]

Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> писал(а) в своём  
письме Sun, 12 Aug 2012 20:42:25 +0400:

> Le Sun, 12 Aug 2012 18:20:42 +0200, Vasiliy Molostov  
> <molostoff@gmail.com> a écrit:
> Is this a personal assumption or an assertion you know some references  
> about?
>
>

Not an assumption, a good source for studying copyright matter came from  
ACE repo:  http://archive.adaic.com/ase/ase02_01/crsware/sei/cm14.zip

-- 
Написано в почтовом клиенте браузера Opera: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Re: copyright questions

[Vasiliy Molostov]

Vasiliy Molostov <molostoff@gmail.com> писал(а) в своём письме Sun, 12 Aug  
2012 21:25:52 +0400:

> Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> писал(а) в своём  
> письме Sun, 12 Aug 2012 20:42:25 +0400:
>
>
> Not an assumption, a good source for studying copyright matter came from  
> ACE repo:  http://archive.adaic.com/ase/ase02_01/crsware/sei/cm14.zip
>

Original work names it 'recordings' for a wide variety of copyritable  
subjects.

ps. ACE = ASE (Ada Software Engineering library), sorry for typo
-- 
Написано в почтовом клиенте браузера Opera: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Re: copyright questions

[Julian Leyh]

Am Sonntag, 12. August 2012 14:46:29 UTC+2 schrieb Leo Brewin:
> Just to be clear, this is a port to Ada, not a set of bindings to the Fortran code.

Keep in mind that copyright does not cover interfaces (API, function headers), data structures, nor functionality. So, if you didn't just copy the algorithms 1:1, your code is a new work and you can decide what license to put it under.

Re: copyright questions

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:27:11 -0700 (PDT), Julian Leyh wrote:

> Am Sonntag, 12. August 2012 14:46:29 UTC+2 schrieb Leo Brewin:
>> Just to be clear, this is a port to Ada, not a set of bindings to the Fortran code.
> 
> Keep in mind that copyright does not cover interfaces (API, function
> headers), data structures, nor functionality.

Oracle vs. Google?

Is it settled? Couldn't Oracle appeal?

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: copyright questions

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:21:41 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:

> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:27:11 -0700 (PDT), Julian Leyh wrote:
>
>> Am Sonntag, 12. August 2012 14:46:29 UTC+2 schrieb Leo Brewin:
>>> Just to be clear, this is a port to Ada, not a set of bindings to the  
>>> Fortran code.
>>
>> Keep in mind that copyright does not cover interfaces (API, function
>> headers), data structures, nor functionality.
>
> Oracle vs. Google?
>
> Is it settled? Couldn't Oracle appeal?
>

In the case where Google were sued, a judgment precisely conclude on API:  
not copyrightable. Luckily, as we don't need yet another kind of patent.


-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University

Re: copyright questions

[Vasiliy Molostov]

Julian Leyh <julian@vgai.de> писал(а) в своём письме Mon, 13 Aug 2012  
13:27:11 +0400:

> Am Sonntag, 12. August 2012 14:46:29 UTC+2 schrieb Leo Brewin:
> interfaces (API, function headers), data structures, nor functionality.  
> So, if you didn't just copy the algorithms 1:1, your code is a new work  
> and you can decide what license to put it under.

More precisely, public APIs are failed to protect by copyright while still  
copyrightable formally.

You can not claim for protect yourself from infringement on API if you  
have released it to public - this is a correct answer. (otherwise, you can  
ambiguously suppose that any ada specification, which is an interface, is  
not copyrightable - and this is not true)

APIs are not patentable, since does not contain any formula or process  
description, they are writings in a tangible fixed form in nature, instead  
you can issue patent on interface protocol, which describes a process (for  
example - ada task body).

Ada 2012 standard comes with contracts in specifications (with PRE => ...  
etc) and can make them patentable (more patentable than before), since  
specification becomes a formula.


-- 
Написано в почтовом клиенте браузера Opera: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Re: copyright questions

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:39:22 +0200, Vasiliy Molostov <molostoff@gmail.com>  
a écrit:

> APIs are not patentable, since does not contain any formula or process  
> description, they are writings in a tangible fixed form in nature,  
> instead you can issue patent on interface protocol, which describes a  
> process (for example - ada task body).
>
> Ada 2012 standard comes with contracts in specifications (with PRE =>  
> ... etc) and can make them patentable (more patentable than before),  
> since specification becomes a formula.

What kind of formulas are patentable? At least, I'm rather sure math  
formulas are not. I heard to say patents are mainly intended to protect  
investment made in physical processes researches (which are indeed  
typically more expensive than computer based research and modelling).  
There are also some laws intended to allow reverse engineering, when this  
is justified by needs for interoperability. I guess balancing between the  
right for interoperability and the right for patent, would be an horror.  
Patenting API and protocol (not internal protocols, which is different),  
would be like patenting the precise definition of a standard screw thread.  
Hardly believable, isn't it? With software, you have ways to protect your  
stuff, you don't have with physical things. For physical things, you have  
no choice, except patents. For software, patents are not required: you can  
decide to not publish sources (or provide these only to parties you can  
trust), encrypt data, and others options. If you want to protect an  
investment made in an xyz-alloy (which typically implies avoiding sales  
lost), you have no others choices, you must patent (I don't mean a  
metallic alloy is easy to copy, but that's less easy to protect simply,  
than to protect non-trivial original computation techniques distributed as  
machine instructions).


-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University

Re: copyright questions

[Vasiliy Molostov]

Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> писал(а) в своём  
письме Tue, 14 Aug 2012 20:22:18 +0400:

> Le Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:39:22 +0200, Vasiliy Molostov  
> <molostoff@gmail.com> a écrit:
>
>> APIs are not patentable, since does not contain any formula or process  
>> description, they are writings in a tangible fixed form in nature,  
>> instead you can issue patent on interface protocol, which describes a  
>> process (for example - ada task body).
>>
>> Ada 2012 standard comes with contracts in specifications (with PRE =>  
>> ... etc) and can make them patentable (more patentable than before),  
>> since specification becomes a formula.
>
> What kind of formulas are patentable? At least, I'm rather sure math  
> formulas are not.
>

You're right, patent formulas. see the link I have attached above in the  
thread.

> I heard to say patents are mainly intended to protect investment made in  
> physical processes researches (which are indeed typically more expensive  
> than computer based research and modelling).

or controlling some kind of harwdare, for example - fukusima reactor. very  
physical.

> There are also some laws intended to allow reverse engineering, when  
> this is justified by needs for interoperability.

yes, perhaps, this is not a copyright matter for this thread, I suppose.

> I guess balancing between the right for interoperability and the right  
> for patent, would be an horror.

? You've made interoperable solution, you have got a profit, then - be  
kindly obligated to
pay for a patented work use, or be sued for a license cost, copyright
can even restrict such use at all up to a criminal penalty.

> Patenting API and protocol (not internal protocols, which is different),  
> would be like patenting the precise definition of a standard screw  
> thread.

perhaps. many "standard" screws are patented indeed, as their screwdrivers  
too.

>  Hardly believable, isn't it? With software, you have ways to protect  
> your stuff, you don't have with physical things.

Protect from what? driver can break my monitor, robot can break someone  
head - why not? a process is patentable.

> For physical things, you have no choice, except patents.

picasso had designed a plate with his hand on it. copyrighted. very cost  
expensive thing, btw.

> For software, patents are not required: you can decide to not publish  
> sources

How about jpeg2000 and wavelet compression algorithms (for example - ECW  
file format and its client access library)?

> than to protect non-trivial original computation techniques distributed  
> as machine instructions).

mathematics are not patentable (but copyrightable) since they are abstract  
(not intended for use by hand),
in a case they are concreted in its application they become patentable  
(along with its application), please read link (cm14.zip)

Please be careful with reading since this matter (copyright and laws)
is very refined and can bring your mindset in a duality of meanings. Also,  
Torvalds said that patents
in software and its language (which is english but not indeed english) -  
is a crap. I agree.

-- 
Написано в почтовом клиенте браузера Opera: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Re: copyright questions

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Wed, 15 Aug 2012 01:46:21 +0200, Vasiliy Molostov <molostoff@gmail.com>  
a écrit:
>> For software, patents are not required: you can decide to not publish  
>> sources
>
> How about jpeg2000 and wavelet compression algorithms (for example - ECW  
> file format and its client access library)?

That's simple: some copyrights (not all) and patents (here, all) are not  
compatible with standards, and things like Jpeg2000 are to be standards,  
or else they serves nothing (Jpeg2000 failed in that matter).

Either one want to propose a standard, and then should (must not, but  
should) not undermine the standard with things preventing its adoption, or  
else he/she should only defines its copyrighted or patented material for  
internal process or internals of a suite only, not foreign process  
exchanges (purpose of a standard).

Nothing, no law, requires it, but that's the basic of honesty and clarity  
(personal opinion).

But yes, I know you're right, that's subject to copyright and even patents  
in some cases.

>> than to protect non-trivial original computation techniques distributed  
>> as machine instructions).
>
> mathematics are not patentable (but copyrightable) since they are  
> abstract (not intended for use by hand),

I feel to understand the opposite.

In the mathematic area, what's copyrightable, is formulation, not  
formulas. One can copyright a course or pedagogical papers (obviously),  
but not the formal and abstract content, as long as any one with  
sufficient knowledge could create the same on its own side. Seed of a  
proof about it: when paternity of a formal invention (math, logic, algo,  
…) is discussed, it often enough occurs that multiple paternities are  
added as the time goes. Ex. a proof was made during the last decade, of  
the Four Colors Theorem, by a Microsoft researcher (using Coq, a proof  
assistant from france). Later, it was discovered in the 1970s, someone  
rather succeed with the same enterprise, using an even cleaner math basis  
if I'm not wrong. Different literatures exposing that proof, for different  
audiences (math gurus, novices, students, …), is automatically subject to  
copyright (even if the author did not explicitly stated any copyright,  
that's a common point in all world's law), but the proof on it‑self, is  
not.

However, if you know an example of a copyrighted math proof or invention  
or formulas, I would be glad to acknowledge a reference, especially that  
I'm interested in that kind of topics (copyrights and patents and their  
social and technical effects).


Cheers


-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University

Re: copyright questions

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Wed, 15 Aug 2012 01:46:21 +0200, Vasiliy Molostov <molostoff@gmail.com>  
a écrit:
> Please be careful with reading since this matter (copyright and laws)
> is very refined and can bring your mindset in a duality of meanings.

P.S. My apologizes, I saved it, but still not read it, as it's long. I  
will try to.


-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University

Re: copyright questions

[Vasiliy Molostov]

Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> писал(а) в своём  
письме Wed, 15 Aug 2012 04:49:35 +0400:

> Le Wed, 15 Aug 2012 01:46:21 +0200, Vasiliy Molostov  
> <molostoff@gmail.com> a écrit:
> However, if you know an example of a copyrighted math proof or invention

Perhaps any, since they are writings (recordings) and at least
a right for authorship (which is a part of copyright) belongs to the  
respective author. You can not issue or release formula or formulation  
under your name that was not invented (written) by you without original  
author approval,
this right belongs to the original author. (But you might still claim that  
you have invented the same at the same time). A good example for copy  
restrictions are US domestic cryptography algorithms that are usually not  
for export.

And for this reason it's formally better to receive some transition of  
that "right to copy"
 from original works used in fortran's Lapack & Blas (on the amount that  
really just copied).
For derivatives from a public work (e.g. released to public) it is enough  
to place a reference on such one, so we can gratefully establish original  
authorship, but indeed Ada2012 version is a new writing (recording) and  
thus - this version has its own authorship and copyright, while formulas  
and formulations are belongs to original Lapack & Blas (i suppose - public  
ones).

Interestingly, that Morse has patented his coding (signalling) system, as  
a process of communication (since applied 'use') that obviously shows how  
to pour out this matter from one kind into another.

Of course these talks are just perfunctory inspections, since we are not  
civil code lawyers, but this knowledge is useful, even as a perfunctory.  
For a serious deal it is better to visit real lawyer.


>
> Cheers
>
>


-- 
Написано в почтовом клиенте браузера Opera: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Re: copyright questions

[Leo Brewin]

Thanks for the comments and suggestions. I alos asked the Lapack team what they would like me to do and they were very generous -- I can add my own license provided I also keep theirs in its original form. Very nice and very easy to comply with. I'll send a follow post announcing the release of the Lapack port.

Cheers,
Leo

Re: copyright questions

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 02:49:35 +0200, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Either one want to propose a standard, and then should (must not, but  
> should) not undermine the standard with things preventing its adoption, or  
> else he/she should only defines its copyrighted or patented material for  
> internal process or internals of a suite only, not foreign process  
> exchanges (purpose of a standard).

Many (most?) standards are not publicly available. You should pay a fee
and/or get a membership in some organization in order to have access to the
standard. The documents comprising such standards are definitely protected
by law, e.g. it is illegal to pass a copy to anybody else. This causes
sometimes quite Kafkan E-mail exchanges between parties when only one of
two has an access to the secret lore. (:-))

As for wining minds and hearts, it is not really necessary. Instead, a more
cost-effective leverage would be to push some governmental body to mandate
the standard. That does the trick.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de