Thread: Source code translation

Originally Posted by Bubba

If you did not protect your code via a license or copyright and you shared it with others then there is nothing you can do. If you want to protect your code then it's actually very simple. License and copyright it and by all means do not share it. You can share ideas from within it, around it, etc., but nothing says you have to share the code.

If you do not share the code, then making the library open source would be rather pointless.

I hate patents very much..

They makes Google dirty.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

They concept here is that you shared it.

Unless you clearly stated your desire for people not to do so by including the proper copyright, not only you can't do a thing about it, but you also encouraged and implicitly stated your desire for people to use your code as they see fit, including their ability to use your code and make money of it.

That's not true in the United States at least. All creative works are copyrighted by the author even if the copyright is not spelled out explicitly. You don't have to "state your desire" that the work be under copyright -- it is under copyright automatically. In order for a work to be placed into the public domain without a copyright it must be explicitly placed in the public domain.

I do not know the situation in other countries. The fact that laws differ from one country to another is reason enough to spell out your intent as clearly as possible.

To answer the original question, I would not really be happy with somebody translating my code to another language. They could do it incorrectly, release something crappy, and give the wrong impression of my code. Then I'd have to deal with numerous "support calls" from users who aren't actually using my software but rather some shoddy translation of it.

Depending on the circumstances, I'd be supportive of an effort to port my code to another language but I would want to be heavily involved in the project. Failing that, I would insist that the other party make a fork, change the name of the codebase, and state very clearly in the documentation that it is a derivative of my work unrelated to me and not supported by me.

Originally Posted by cyberfish

At least they are notifying you, and hopefully giving you credit. Note that opensource code can still have copyright. The BSD license, for example, says you need to credit the original project (I believe).

I think we need to distinguish between the copyright itself and the license agreement that comes with it. The copyright is simple and consists of the words "Copyright 2009 Foo M. Bar." The license agreement is basically a promise that you won't sue people for using your copyrighted work in some limited set of ways.

Just because code is open source doesn't mean it isn't copyrighted. In fact, it MUST be copyrighted because without the underlying copyright there can be no license agreement since there is no legal force for it to operate on. The situation would then be "public domain" where the code has no legal owner at all.

Originally Posted by brewbuck

I do not know the situation in other countries.

This "automatic copyright" applies to any country that is a signatory of the Berne Convention.

Originally Posted by brewbuck

In order for a work to be placed into the public domain without a copyright it must be explicitly placed in the public domain.

Though apparently it is not possible (for private citizens) to explicitly place works into the public domain in some jurisdictions.

That's not true in the United States at least. All creative works are copyrighted by the author even if the copyright is not spelled out explicitly. You don't have to "state your desire" that the work be under copyright -- it is under copyright automatically. In order for a work to be placed into the public domain without a copyright it must be explicitly placed in the public domain.

I do not know the situation in other countries.

To the best of my knowledge, that's the situation in Canada as well.

Wow, that was an informative post, wasn't it? [edit] Especially in light of the posts which were posted while I was typing this up . . . . [/edit] Maybe I should add more to it.

Depending on the circumstances, I'd be supportive of an effort to port my code to another language but I would want to be heavily involved in the project. Failing that, I would insist that the other party make a fork, change the name of the codebase, and state very clearly in the documentation that it is a derivative of my work unrelated to me and not supported by me.

I'd assume that a complete re-write in another language as the consensus seems to be implying would not even start with the same code base. I too would probably like it if the translator did not claim that the code was written by me, but that's just reasonable.

A conversion of your code would, at best, get more users using your software. At worst, it might result in people getting very annoyed at the translated code -- but even that might be a good thing because they might come to your code to see if the original was any better.

Just some thoughts. I've never been in this situation so I couldn't really tell you for sure.

I actually never meant to say copyright. Don't know why I typed it. License was the word.

EDIT: Curiously though -- I had to check -- Portugal Public Domain notion is fundamentally different. Only the term exists. The reality is that Public Domain under Portuguese jurisdiction doesn't preclude ownership and still protects the work integrity. Only supports the free dissemination. I can however declare my work under public domain any time I wish.

These differences are quite astounding and pose great difficulties when sharing work worldwide. I think we can argue it's not Public Domain and more easily solve the problem.

Originally Posted by Bubba

I'm not extremely familiar with copyright and patent law on such things but is software included in the 'creative works' category or is that more geared towards books, paintings, etc.? To all of us software is definitely a creative work and we work hard to produce it but I'm not sure if that is where it falls in patent law. The thing about laws in the United States is they are so complex that you really have to ask a lawyer who specializes in a certain field of law to get good and accurate answers. Since I do not know any patent lawayers nor do I completely understand how or where software fits into the law I cannot say for sure which laws are applicable to software.

Patent law is separate from copyright law. Copyrights cover creative works, which is an expansive term, but patents only cover inventions -- it's neither a superset or a subset of creative works.

Which set of laws are applicable to software depends on the country, but software is always copyrightable. Only in a few countries, USA included, can a patent be granted for a software process, but there is still the restriction that it be "tied to a piece of machinery" or "produce a tangible transformation of some object," meaning that the patent covers the functional realization of an algorithm, but not the algorithm itself.

Strangely, software is only patentable in the USA because of a legal case call "In Re Bilski" which had nothing to do with software. It was a dispute over the patentability of a business process which was described as a series of steps (i.e. an algorithm). Legal precedent having been set, software patents became common immediately following that.