From: Damian Vicino (damian_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-19 14:37:30
El vie., 19 jun. 2020 a las 0:45, Darryl Green via Boost (<
boost_at_[hidden]>) escribió:
> I also am not a lawyer but know from experience that you can't copyright
> data, or simple expressions of it. A program is an original work. A table
> of facts it uses is not. Someone can write what they like in a licence but
> if the table can be (ideally, has been) produced manually or
> algorithmically from information (published in whatever form, even if
> copyright) that simply conveys facts you can use it. There is some
> risk/issue if you use the way the facts are arranged "creatively" e.g. as a
> graph or figure or if included in a database (that is organised
> "creatively" to allow use/retrieval) etc.. Also copyright does not protect
> an underlying algorithm - only the program that implements it. And if there
> is simply/only one obvious way to represent said algorithm etc it doesn't
> prevent one writing the same thing... Obviously a whole program composed of
> fragments that aren't individually copyrightable but "creatively arranged"
> in some original program can't then be arranged into a "new" program to
> form a whole that is - effectively - the original work without that copying
> of creative arrangement being a breach of copyright ...
>
> The problem is that what is copyright, what is copyrightable, and what is
legal or illegal is defined in a country by country basis. Exploring a WW
application/interpretation of law is extremely expensive and that is why
when an org settles on a license it sticks to it to keep it simple and
avoid risk of overlooking something in the process and get in big trouble
somewhere.