From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Unibyte characters, strings, and buffers Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 01:03:15 +0900 Message-ID: <87ha6hngak.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <831txozsqa.fsf@gnu.org> <83ppl7y30l.fsf@gnu.org> <87r45nouvx.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <8361myyac6.fsf@gnu.org> <87a9capqfr.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <5335C336.3080108@dancol.org> <87mwg9nti0.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83ioqxdzax.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1396109096 22112 80.91.229.3 (29 Mar 2014 16:04:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 16:04:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dancol@dancol.org, monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 29 17:04:50 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WTvkX-0001W4-BN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 17:04:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40077 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WTvkW-0008Mq-TL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 12:04:48 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40337) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WTvkM-0008LK-UB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 12:04:46 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WTvkF-000535-EN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 12:04:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:49312) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WTvk7-0004tH-6u; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 12:04:23 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 643A8970A3D; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 01:03:15 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 52FD01A28DC; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 01:03:15 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <83ioqxdzax.fsf@gnu.org> X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta34) "kale" 2a0f42961ed4 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 130.158.97.224 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:171152 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > I'm quite sure you can also describe the fine details of the > implementation, as long as you don't describe that by posting the > actual code. No, that's not necessarily the case. At least in the U.S., the criteria are expressiveness, originality, and fixed in a medium. Email is such a medium. Obviously, design can be original. Design decisions are rarely dictated by the one feasible way to do it, and if not, design is an expressive act and subject to copyright. I don't know if Richard is still so cautious, but the above reasoning is why would-be contributors to GNU of work-alike software are advised to use different algorithms and data structures from the original in their implementations. > AFAIU, copyright protects only the form, not the ideas. Ideas can > be described and discussed at any level of detail, because > implementation of those same ideas by another person will never, > except by improbable accident, be so close to the original as to be > suspected of copying. Unfortunately, many cases that some observers believe involve independent invention in fact were resolved in favor of the plaintiff on the basis that the appearance was sufficiently similar, and the defendent couldn't prove non-copying.[1] Your "probability" argument doesn't hold up. Footnotes: [1] Copyright infringement is a tort, not a crime, here. Criminal infringement puts the burden of proof squarely on the prosecutor. Civil cases, however, are based on the "preponderance of evidence".