1) i want haskell native examples of the actual worrys, not abstract ones 2) people have literally written enforced laws as a joke or spite, please do some supplementary reading to ground your conjecture in legal writings, even from wikipedia
3) morals and law are not the same. llms do conflate thise all the time. i totally beleive you have better moral values thanapplicable law, but thats not law. On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 2:37 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > It's true that sometimes there is only one way to implement something and > I > know copyright does not cover such cases. However, I think that is quite > rare > in software development, especially once we start looking at combinations > of > two or three functions. > > > and fortunately literally here means verbatim > > > > naively these two remarks sound contradictory, but its really a > reflection of > > the anthropogenic complexity of humanity > > I remain utterly confused about what you mean with “literally” and > “verbatim”, > and thus unconvinced by your arguments. Like, are you saying that renaming > all > variables and functions and changing all for-loops to while-loops (using C > for > this example) is a valid way to avoid copyright infringement because it is > no > longer a literal or verbatim copy? I refuse to believe that. > > On 9/1/26 20:12, Carter Schonwald via ghc-devs 'ghc-devs at haskell.org' > wrote: > > 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] <mailto: > [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 > <http:// > > 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]> <mailto:[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]
