Andi Jahja wrote:
This is unfair IMO, you seem to hide under the condition "IDEA CANNOT BE
COPYRIGHTED" or are you declaring yourself a genius because you can
"implement" other's stuff into yours without taking a look and then
simply stated that it is a SIMPLE thing? :-)
I am not trying to be rude but I simply feel this is unjust :-)
There is nothing unjust about it. It's been this way for decades if not
centuries.
Expressions of things, song notes on paper, words on paper, computer
code in files or on paper, etc. can be copyrighted. If you derive
something from copyrighted work, it is still copyrighted by the original
author, not at all by the person who derived it. Even the changed parts
are copyrighted by the original author no matter who does the changes.
This is known as a derivative work. If you start from a clean paper or
file and type or write the entire thing, you own the copyright. If you
start with someone elses code and make changes, the other person still
owns the copyright on the entire work. This is what makes the GPL work.
When the original author licenses code through the GPL, he agrees that
you can distribute it, modify it and use it, but you can't change the
copyright and you can't change the licensing terms.
Ideas are not expressions of things. Ideas are esoteric, thus there is a
different system evolved around protecting them. Patents protect ideas.
Not copyrights.
And unlike copyright, where copyright is automatic when you express
something, patents are not automatic.
In the free world, most countries have agreed on this structure of
limits and protections. This is far beyond a gentlemen's agreement.
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
