Boost logo

Boost :

From: Damian Vicino (damian_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-19 14:37:30

El vie., 19 jun. 2020 a las 0:45, Darryl Green via Boost (<
boost_at_[hidden]>) escribió:

> I also am not a lawyer but know from experience that you can't copyright
> data, or simple expressions of it. A program is an original work. A table
> of facts it uses is not. Someone can write what they like in a licence but
> if the table can be (ideally, has been) produced manually or
> algorithmically from information (published in whatever form, even if
> copyright) that simply conveys facts you can use it. There is some
> risk/issue if you use the way the facts are arranged "creatively" e.g. as a
> graph or figure or if included in a database (that is organised
> "creatively" to allow use/retrieval) etc.. Also copyright does not protect
> an underlying algorithm - only the program that implements it. And if there
> is simply/only one obvious way to represent said algorithm etc it doesn't
> prevent one writing the same thing... Obviously a whole program composed of
> fragments that aren't individually copyrightable but "creatively arranged"
> in some original program can't then be arranged into a "new" program to
> form a whole that is - effectively - the original work without that copying
> of creative arrangement being a breach of copyright ...
> The problem is that what is copyright, what is copyrightable, and what is
legal or illegal is defined in a country by country basis. Exploring a WW
application/interpretation of law is extremely expensive and that is why
when an org settles on a license it sticks to it to keep it simple and
avoid risk of overlooking something in the process and get in big trouble

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at