[kittywav]

> 2+2=4 is not copyrightable.

"2+2=4" is a computer program as much as "Hello world" is a literary work: you need to use better strawmen.

> I’d further that any program in a CS101 textbook is equally uncopyrightable.

Are you suggesting that the computer program that is the subject of this thread has the same creativity level as "2+2=4" or that of "any program in a CS101 textbook"?

Also, notice that your opinion on whether something is creative enough or not is pretty much irrelevant as far as copyright law is concerned.

> Purely functional expressions are not copyrightable, regardless of the creative effort to derive them.

Ok, so now you only need to demonstrate that the thing we are talking about (and not some other arbitrary hypothetical example) is a "purely functional expression" and not a "creative expression". Good luck with that.

[randombits0]

Ok, I’ll put it this way. If every homework submission for a particular CS101 assignment was essentially identical, it’s not creative, it’s functional. That’s what I mean by 2+2=4.

Oracle tried to hang Google with copied code for max(x,y), which returned the greater of two parameters. That’s what you get when every single byte of software is a “literary work” worthy of independent copyright protection. Bullshit.

The issue is when does an expression of creativity manifested in code become uniquely copyrightable?

[spider-mario]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

[kittywav]

I mean... I empathize with your feeling. I'm not telling you how I think things should be, but more about how things are, in practice. In practice, algorithms are not copyrighteable, but specific implementations of algorithms are copyrighteable (and, by default, are copyrighted as soon as they are set in some fixed medium).

The issue of whether something is creative enough to warrant authorship rights or any other type of IP rights can be, as you know, murky, and sometimes has to be decided in court. Taking your example, if Google literally copied the code verbatim (rather than re-writing it themselves), then... technically... I guess it is a copyright violation (though not something serious).

The thing is... when you have something trivial that can be efficiently implemented in a very limited (and trivial) set of ways (e.g. 2+2=4, the definition of max(x,y)), it's easy to argue that it is plausible that you didn't copy the code (i.e. that you just independently reimplemented it yourself and it accidentally ended up looking exactly like someone else's implementation). On the other hand, when you have a large codebase, it becomes much harder to argue that (unless you use some obscene levels of obfuscation... and, even then...).

Are you really trying to argue that TikTok didn't just blatantly take large pieces of code from this opensource project? I didn't look into it too hard, but it seems like OBS might have a case here, unless we're assuming that this codebase has the complexity level of "2+2=4" and that TikTok just accidentally it.

Have a nice day.

[randombits0]

Oh, the original topic? I didn’t consider it at all. I was just discussing copyright and how it applies to code. The Oracle/Google dust up was a great example of such ambiguity, and it didn’t help in drawing lines in the future.

As to how it works now? I agree with you.

But listen to the argument you’re making: The otherwise uncopyrightable functional code expression becomes copyrightable if and only if it is copied by another. The exact same expression, still uncopyrightable, is only free to use if independently created and only by those that created the expression, who may then restrict or license the uncopyrightable expression as they wish.

That’s where we are.

[randombits0]

I agree with this, actually. And we’re collectively poor at drawing lines.