Re: Algorithms or Copyright

[Robert Jasiek <jasiek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chen Zhixing wrote:
> Prof. Ken Chen published his scheme of group identification.

I am not quite sure whether I have read about this and would
also be interested in a reference.

>    Reverse engineering is also allowed, provided that the purpose is only
> for study and is not directly used for economic interest.

Hmm. It is hard to distinguish direct and indirect usage.
I do not wonder why so many courts are busy...

So you think that if one models life and death, e.g., excellently,
then everybody might look at a decompiled source code, extract the
algorithms, slightly modify them, and use them in an own program?
Thus are we all working for science and not for permanent commercial
benefits?

> Of course, I have no
> way to detect incorporation of my algoritm in any other go program.

Indeed, this is a problem. Therefore I have assumed that already
reverse engineering is stealing of some kind. Maybe I am wrong.

> Such actions
> are not merely reverse engineering or learning algorithm, but belongs to the
> category of plagiarism.

In principle, I agree.

David Mechner <mechner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > An algorithm is an object of science; it cannot be copyrighted.
> Heh. No, just patented.

It is new to me that a patent might apply to something else than
mechanical tools.

-- 
robert jasiek