yes, because code is math, and sometimes theres only one proof, and copyright doesnt protect factual stuff just the ultra soecific exact sentence (except when its literally the only sane way to say soemthing).
there is a huge amount of law / case law / history for how this works, and fortunately literally here means verbatim naively these two remarks sound contradictory, but its really a reflection of the anthropogenic complexity of humanity On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 1:56 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > If you define “exact literal content” so broadly as to allow for > translations > of prose, why wouldn't it also apply to translating software to different > languages or using different naming conventions and other minor code style > elements? > > On 9/1/26 19:50, Carter Schonwald 'carter.schonwald at gmail.com' wrote: > > translations are explicitly reusing the exact literal content, and > theres > > explicitly carve outs in modern law around translated works > > > > > > math and food recipes are explicitly not protected by copyright law. > > > > i hope that helps clarify? > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 1:41 PM <[email protected] <mailto: > [email protected]>> > > wrote: > > > > > building dimilar code for a similar task in a > > > different language is definitely not infringing unless its also > copying > > all > > > the text from the source application like some sort of text rpg. > > What if we compare this to literature? Surely a translation of a > book into > > another language is still considered a derivative work, even if it > reuses none > > of the “literal text”. > > > > >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
