[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: re-writing algorithms in Guile

From: Nate Rosenbloom
Subject: Re: re-writing algorithms in Guile
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 04:09:02 +0000

Note: Not a Lawyer. But according to this stack exchange thread
(and according to my intuitive understanding of the term) porting code to a
new language would constitute a derivative work since the algorithm itself
stays the same. So you'd need to license the code using whatever provisions
the existing code has for derivative works.

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 9:50 PM Zelphir Kaltstahl <> wrote:

> Don't take my words for words of a lawyer:
> /opinion
> I personally think, that something like a general algorithm cannot be
> limited
> off and away from usage in society. I don't know about the law specifics,
> but if
> there was a law against rewriting an algorithm, then it would be a quite
> stupid
> law, as it would only serve to hinder progress of society.
> However, as we all know the law is rarely written by experts. A lot of
> stupid
> things are in there. It does not always take the good of society into
> account
> and sometimes is even biased towards protecting the ones in power and with
> financial resources. So it could very well be, that this is one of the
> cases,
> where the law is stupid, or one, where it depends on what kind of day the
> judge
> has or how well the judge knows software and code.
> Furthermore I think, that rewriting the algorithm into a purely functional
> one
> is often a significant work on its own and definitely adding enough of
> ones own
> work to make it a separate thing in total.
> /opinion end
> On 6/28/21 11:38 PM, Tim Meehan wrote:
> > Say for instance, I have found an algorithm for scalar function
> > minimization on a website, written in C. It is posted with a license for
> > use. If I write something based on this hypothetical code, is it then
> > clearly also licensed in the same manner?
> >
> > Granted, I know that this is guile-user and not guile-lawyer, but in many
> > cases the transformation from procedural to functional is kind of a
> radical
> > re-imagining. I usually try to contact the people and ask them directly,
> > but was wondering what was the general consensus in cases where the
> > original author did not answer?
> --
> repositories:

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]