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
Algorithms cannot be copyrighted. What is copyrighted is the creative expression of an algorithm. The variable names, the comments, choosing a for loop vs a while loop, or a ternary operator over an “if”, the order of arguments to a function, architectural decisions, etc.

Copyright is formed when a human makes a choice about equivalent ways of implementing an algorithm.

>>zarzav+wW
Also this depends on jurisdiction.

>>fulafe+ZW
Is there a jurisdiction that allows purely algorithms to be copyrighted? As far as I know, usually algorithms come under the umbrella of patents (in jurisdictions that allow software patents) rather than copyright.

For example, it would interfere with e.g. copyright of scientific/mathematical papers if algorithms were copyrightable, as mathematicians would not be able to extend another mathematician’s ideas without first gaining permission.

>>zarzav+jv1
What constitutes a copyrightable creative piece varies. (And in a lot of places of course algorithms can't be patented either)