Re 1: I think it is quite a tall order to require a concrete example of 
copyright infringement.

I don't see how 2 & 3 are related to my messages in this thread. I did not 
mention morality nor did I assume no laws were written as jokes or out of 
spite. If you think I did, please explain your reasoning more clearly and point 
to specific parts of my responses.

Also, if the law is really so complex, contradictory, and sometimes written or 
enforced as a joke or out of spite, shouldn't we be extra careful to avoid even 
a tiny risk of being sued?

On 9/1/26 21:25, Carter Schonwald via ghc-devs 'ghc-devs at haskell.org' wrote:
> 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] <mailto:[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
>     <http://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]> <mailto:[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> <http://
>      > 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]>>
>     <mailto:[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]

Reply via email to