From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: Linus' sha1 is much faster! Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:34:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <20090817185448.30254.qmail@science.horizon.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: art.08.09@gmail.com, bdonlan@gmail.com, git@vger.kernel.org, johnflux@gmail.com, P@draigBrady.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org To: George Spelvin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Aug 17 21:34:35 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Md7yT-0005SX-Vd for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:34:34 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753175AbZHQTe3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:34:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752834AbZHQTe3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:34:29 -0400 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:31900 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751738AbZHQTe2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:34:28 -0400 Received: from xanadu.home ([66.130.28.92]) by VL-MH-MR001.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-4.01 (built Aug 3 2007; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0KOJ00LAZD0Z66C0@VL-MH-MR001.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:34:12 -0400 (EDT) X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home In-reply-to: <20090817185448.30254.qmail@science.horizon.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, George Spelvin wrote: > > I don't think this trick of making source code textually different from > > another work while still intimately mimicking the same structure entitles > > you to any copyright (or non copyright) claims over that other work. I > > certainly wouldn't bet any dime for this standing up in court. > >
> Actually, I would. I did a lot more than text search and replace; > I re-implemented it from FIPS 180-2 (work of U.S. government, no copyright) > and then merged in the *ideas* from the mailing list. > > (And from elsewhere; the idea of a five-round macro is from Brian Gladman.) > > Remember, to the extent that something is *functional*, it is not > copyrightable; copyright only covers the non-functional expressive bits. > The vast majority of that code is simply required by the standard, > or the desired calling interface. > > For a large portion of the rest, remember that standard programming > conventions (e.g. brace style, macro names IN CAPS, etc.) that's also > non-copyrightable "scene a faire" material. > > It's well established that paraphrasing a recipe avoids copyright; > the proportions and treatment of the ingredients is not copyrightable. > > For more details, see the extensive coverage of the NEC v. Intel decision > (1989) regarding the firmware for NEC's 8086-clone V20 microprocessor. > It was found non-infringing despite non-clean-room implementation and > substantial similarities. >
Whatever. NEC and Intel were certainly commercial competitors. They were far from being friends. So if you feel like having too many friends then just go ahead with that stance. > As for politeness, that's exactly why I did post it and solicit > objections. You said: |It uses Linus's and Artur's performance ideas, and some of Linus' macro |ideas (in the rotate implementation), but tries to be textually |different. Is there anything recognizable that anyone cares to clam |copyright to? the "try to be textually different" in order to ask for "anything recognizable that anyone cares to clam copyright to" is what I find dubious. > The purpose of the rewrite is to avoid having to make > pessimistic assumptions about people who don't respond. > > I suppose I should have made that request clearer: > Is there anyone who claims copyright on anything here? > Or would just like credit? > If so, are you willing to donate it to the public domain? I think this is much nicer to everyone involved. As far as I'm concerned, I'm OK with giving any small copyright I might have in this SHA1 implementation, if any, to the public domain. Credits are always nice. Nicolas