Andrei's Google Talk

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:45:18 -0400, klickverbot <see at klickverbot.at> wrote:

> On 9/21/10 4:31 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> Huh? Look, this isn't an issue of being deceitful, it's an issue of the
>> defensible strength of "yes, I read it, but I didn't copy anything" vs.
>> "no I didn't read it, so I couldn't have copied anything." If you don't
>> believe the person, then it's up to you to prove they're lying.
>  > […]
>  > It's even possible to read code, understand the ideas, and write your
>  > own code to implement the ideas (commonly done via a clean-room
>  > implementation).
>
> I guess I don't quite understand US copyright laws here: Here in Europe,  
> if somebody accuses you of copying their work, they have to prove that  
> you in fact did copy it. Let's assume that person manages to convince a  
> judge that your code is in fact a copy of theirs. To defend yourself, it  
> should not really make a difference whether you claim that you read that  
> code or not.
>
> Even if it mattered whether you looked at the code or not (at least for  
> Europe, I'm reasonably sure that it does not), how are you going to  
> convince the judge that you didn't look at the source code? After all,  
> for Open Source projects, the source code is publicly available at the  
> internet, and if you did not write your program in jail or deep down in  
> the ocean in a submarine, there is always the possibility that you could  
> have looked at the code.

If you copy something, there is usually evidence that you did so, like a  
lack of development of your code (all of a sudden, a complete working  
version was checked in!).  But besides that, if you have a track record of  
never reading competitor's source, and the evidence supports that, then I  
don't see how the judge cannot reverse the ruling.

This newsgroup would serve as good evidence that Walter does not look at  
others' source.

The fact that the code is available does not make it likely that you  
copied it!  You can't just publish code and then claim any similar code  
*must* be yours because it's impossible for someone not to look at your  
code.  People aren't convicted on "possibilities" they are convicted on  
proof.

> As I said, I don't really know much about the US copyright laws, but if  
> you are used to common European jurisdiction, this situation seems  
> pretty bizarre…

I'm not sure how Europe's copyright laws work, but in the US, if you  
didn't copy it, it doesn't violate copyright law.  You can't copy  
something that you don't have the original for, so even if your work  
appears very similar (as code very often does -- styles are similar,  
algorithms usually are the same, etc.), it's not copying unless you had  
access to the source *AND* copied it.

If in Europe, the only evidence a judge looks at is if the code is  
similar, I'm glad I don't live in Europe...

-Steve