zlacker

>>davidg+(OP)
This shows how copyright is all screwed up. Let's say the code in question is based on a published algorithm, maybe Yuster and Zwick, (I did not check).

What exactly gives Davis a better claim to the copyright than the inventors of the algorithm? Yes, I know software is copyrightable while algorithms are not, but it is not at all clear to my why that should be the case. The effort of translating an algorithm into code is trivial compared to designing the algorithm in the first place, no?

>>deepsp+rh
True, copyright is screwed up and completely incompatible with the 21st century. We should abolish it so that these silly questions of data ownership become irrelevant.

However, until that happens, Microsoft and GitHub cannot get away with blatant copyright infringement like this. No one is interested in their poor excuses either. People get sued and DMCA'd out of existence for far lesser offenses, yet Microsoft gets away with violating the license of every free software and open source project out there? That's fucked up.