Rod Dixon wrote: > I agree that this thread is interesting, although there has been some > confusion over the derivation of sub classes from a base class in > object-oriented programming and the meaning of derivative work as a matter > of copyright law. Interestingly enough, some of the confusion emanates > from the ill-conceived ways copyright doctrine applies to software, not > just misunderstandings of copyright law. I published an article in the > Columbia Science & Technology Law Review(www.stlr.org) that, among other > things, makes > the claim that some OO-programming practices demonstrate why the scope of > protection of copyright for source code is far too extensive. One could > make a persuasive showing that programming practices that use inheritance, > encapsulation, polymorphism, and similar practices demonstrate thata great > deal of source code constitutes a cauldron of ideas, and only a scintilla > of original expression. Hence, OOP supports the idea of open source.
Rod, Thanks for the response. Is that the article with the title "When Efforts To Conceal May Actually Reveal:". (I guess the appropriate link to refer someone to is http://www.columbia.edu/cu/stlr/html/volume1/encryptionintro.html (or maybe http://www.stlr.org/cite.cgi?volume=1&article=3 which takes you to that link). Yes, I guess the second one is the official citation.) I have found it and will read it (after I search for "encapsulation" in an effort to confirm it is the right article. Oops, I guess there is no easy way to search the text of the article -- I'll start by skimming it. If that is not the right article would you please give me a link to the right article? Thanks, Randy Kramer -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3