zlacker

>>belter+(OP)
Isn’t “rewrite the example code in your own style” accepted best practice for human coders, when working from an example that does what you need?

I’m not sure what would be acceptable output for a code generation tool if rewriting the examples isn’t ok and reimplementing something that performs the same function still isn’t ok. Are we automatically granting de-facto code patents on all published code now?

>>taneq+he
The point here is that this isn't some example from a textbook or even stack overflow, but licensed pieces of work with all the legal complications that come with that. This is about the potential use of this code in proprietary code (or code otherwise incompatible with the original licenses), and I really don't think anyone would say it is "accepted best practice" to copy out someone else's work you find online, licenses be damned, in a professional setting.

>>l__l+Wg
No, you're missing the point.

There are two worlds.

In one, everytime someone publishes code with a license attached, they've taken a chunk out of the set of valid lines of software capable of being permissibly written without license encumberance. This is the world the poster you are replying to is imagining we're headed toward, and this case basically does a fantastic job of laying a test case/precedent for.

The other world, is one where everyone accepts all programming code is math, and copyrighting things is like erecting artificial barriers to facilitate information asymmetry. I.e. trying to own 2 + 2. In this second hypothetical world, we summarily reject IP as a thing.

The 2nd world is what I'd rather live in, as the first truly feels more and more like hell to me. However, given the first one is the world we're in, I'd like to see the mental gymnastics employed to undermine Microsoft's original software philosophy.

EDIT: Voir dire will be a hoot. Any wagers on how many software people make it onto the jury if any?

>>salawa+Fj
I'm don't think this dichotomy is at all fair. Just because someone makes a piece of software public does not mean they want it freely copied, and I think that can be a completely reasonable stance to have. I'm struggling to make sense of your argument unless you believe either:

- Code is not intellectual property; I don't see this as easily defensible. It takes time, effort, and in some cases seriously heavy resources to come up with some of the tech companies rely on. Should all private companies rescind copyright on literally everything their staff write?

- Intellectual property is a nonsense concept altogether; in this case, I don't think you're ever going to get your way in the court of public opinion.

>>l__l+4n
This might help shed some light:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distin...