Yes, I remember. I quoted directly from the United States Copyright Office, though, and it seems to contradict that claim.



This only explains the difference between algorithm (the process of creating cold fusion) and source code (her paper itself describing the process), which I already knew. You're claiming that there's some third distinct, non-literal, copyrightable element, the "expression of the algorithm", which isn't elaborated on in this example outside of to say that they have to make sure that they didn't take any of it from the original paper (like this helps define what it is in any way whatsoever…).

And, actually, it's beginning to look to me as if the "expression" is, instead, referring to the source code itself, which I could understand, since that's what you need to express (read: implement) an algorithm. Though, if this is the case, then said expression is not non-literal.

I don't see any contradiction. However if you honestly believe that the judge misunderstood copyright law when he made his decision, you should certainly feel free to contact him and explain what you felt he did wrong. You could then do the same for the judges in all the other cases that have been cited.



Not quite. The "expression" has both literal and non-literal elements which are protected by copyright. If you were to write a program which utilised an algorithm, then that program would be protected by copyright - but because algorithms themselves aren't protected, someone could implement your algorithm in their own (non-derived) program without fear of copyright infringement.

You don't see the contradiction between claiming that "program architecture, structure, and organization" is protectable, when the copyright office itself says "layouts" are not protected? Or "operational modules and user interfaces" vs. "systems"?

Also, your base case for supporting arguments even showed that multiple judges interpreted the same laws different ways.



Then the "expression" is just the conceptual combination of the algorithm and its implementation (source code).

No, I don't. This is also explained in the article I quoted previously: http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/unprotec...

"Ideas, procedures, principles, discoveries, and devices are all specifically excluded from copyright protection. As stated in the Copyright Act:

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

This specific exclusion helps maintain the distinction between copyright protection and patent law. Ideas and inventions are the subject matter for patents, while the expression of ideas is governed by copyright law. If copyright were extended to protect ideas, principles and devices, then it would be possible to circumvent the rigorous prerequisites of patent law and secure protection for an invention merely by describing the invention in a copyrightable work."

And: http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/unprotec...

"One of the primary purposes for prohibiting copyright protection in useful articles is to prevent the granting of patent-like protection through the copyright laws. If a useful article was protected under the copyright law, the protection against copying would be quite similar to patent protection. Since copyrights are so much easier to obtain than patents, there would be no way of limiting this patent-like monopoly to inventions that are truly novel and non-obvious."



No, it's the combination of the literal (eg source code) and non-literal elements. The algorithm itself is not protected by copyright law, as I've already explained, only your specific implementation of it.

For example: If you were to create an algorithm for calculating experience points based on the difficulty of an opponent, and used that algorithm as part of a snippet, that snippet (your implementation) would be protected by copyright law. If people wanted to use your snippet they would have to follow your licence - but they could implement your algorithm in their own code without fear of infringement. In short, they can copy your algorithm, but not your implementation of it.

Has this not died yet? Christ. How long can you beat a dead horse?

I gave up and went back to coding stuff for my own mud, writing the background story and a miriad of other things that i should use my time for other then playing a game of Drrck.

I think this quite explicitly shows that "program architecture structure, sequence, organization, operational modules, and user interfaces" are not protected.



Exactly what non-literal elements are copyrightable that don't qualify as an "idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, discovery, program logic, algorithm, or layout"? The only examples you've shown are from the source that listed "program architecture, "structure, sequence and organization", operational modules, and computer-user interface"; however, all of these fall into one of the unprotected categories:

program architecture = layout
structure = layout
sequence = layout
organization = layout
operational module = process, system, method of operation, and/or algorithm
computer-user interface = process, system

This sure was a surprising way to revive an ~18month old thread. :smirk:
So, how does the bare-bones bases of SocketMUD and NakedMUD compare?
I've never looked at either of them and only know of the very little that was hinted at in the beginning of this thread.
What features do they both include?
What features does one have that the other doesn't?
What, if any, are the license requirements?

No, it doesn't. Is this really so difficult to understand?

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyr...

"Most courts confronted with the issue have determined that copyright protection extends not only to the literal elements of a program, i.e., its source code and object code, but also to its "nonliteral" elements, such as the program architecture, "structure, sequence and organization", operational modules, and computer-user interface. See, e.g., Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992)"


Whelan v. Jaslow: http://www.benedict.com/Digital/Software...

"The court decided that the purpose or function of a utilitarian work, such as a computer program, is the work's idea, and that everything not necessary to that purpose or function is part of the expression of the idea. Where there are various means of achieving the purpose or function, the means chosen are not necessary and therefore constitute expression. With this rule, the court held that copyright in a computer program protects the non-literal structure, sequence and organization of that program. Consequently, copyright infringement could be found for these elements even in the absence of direct source code or object code copying."

I read it the first 37 times. It still doesn't explain the quote I gave you, direct from the copyright office itself.

Well nobody can say I didn't try to explain it to you. I don't know whether you're just too proud to admit you're wrong, or whether you're really the only person in this thread who still can't understand it after 17 pages of explanations, but what I've quoted are real court cases not personal opinion. Copyright protection extends to the non-literal elements of a computer program. That's simply the way it is, regardless of whether or not you personally understand why.

It's not a personal opinion. I gave you a direct quote from the copyright office. Personally, I think you're being the typical stubborn debater in the sense that when new information is presented to you that contradicts your well-rehearsed points, you completely ignore it, reiterate those points, and cross your fingers in hopes that you don't get called on it.

Of course, I could be completely wrong, but that won't be made apparent unless/until you address the point.

The court obviously feels the way it ruled, if you want to question it, don't ask KaVir to clarify it, ask the judge.

He is presenting the information from actual cases, he didn't make the ruling, if you want an in depth explanation because you cant understand that, again, call the judge and ask him why.

The only person being stubborn past all reason here is you.

-Syn

Anyone? :stare:

Pot, kettle, black? His points are well rehearsed because they're what case law says. Period. Not fantasyland wishful thinking or personal desire. I've seen KaVir admit when he's wrong before so I know he's not above doing so if given evidence that proves as much. You have failed to do so in this instance though.