Re: copyright questions

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

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