Talk:RWPCL

Is it, by this license, I'm not able to derive code from any robots under this license and use it in my robot where all my other code are either close-sourced or under the different license (such as NPRL)? I know that you guys are not lawyers, but please answer. » Nat | Talk » 14:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Right. If you use code from a RWPCL bot, your new robot's full source code must be open source under the RWPCL. This would apply to not just source code, but also to ideas or concepts that you learn from studying a RWPCL bot's code. The latter is a little bit fuzzier, as it's harder to prove, and many of those ideas/concepts can be found in non-RWPCL places, as well. This is generally called a Copyleft type of license, like the GPL. --Voidious 14:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. You can't copyright ideas or concepts, only fixed implementations. If I copy a RWCPL snippet of code -- even if I make major changes -- and use it in a closed-source bot, then that's bad. But if I'm a beginning robocoder and learn how to do a for loop in Java, or how HOT works, or even more advanced concepts after reading RWCPL code, then I'm free to apply that knowledge to any aspect of my life and the RWCPL doesn't get to tag along. --Darkcanuck 15:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, however the existing RWPCL page says 'concepts' which is a bad thing. Note though, with copyright there is a fuzzy line where copying out code from memory can be a violation but writing code based upon concepts remembered is not a violation. In some cases where the number of ways to implement a concept is limited then the issue gets even fuzzier really. Regardless of that fuzzy area though, indeed concepts can't be copyrighted. --Rednaxela 15:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, right, I apologize for the misinformation. I'm fairly certain that, for some intellectual property (just patents?), there is more than just copy/paste at issue. Like I know that for my job, if I have even seen source code from certain other companies, I would be "tainted" and unable to work on certain of our products due to legal concerns with (even accidentally) lifting IP. But perhaps that is totally irrelevant to copyright, which is all we're dealing with here. --Voidious 15:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm rather sure that issue with things being "tainted" is directly relevant to copyright. That is exactly the fuzzy area I was talking about. The issue is that it can be hard to distinguish between code created from memory that is a derivative work of other code (even accidentally), and code that was merely based on the concepts. While there is no hard line legal requirement that prevents seeing the other code, almost any sane company has strict policies to steer clear of that fuzzy area because who knows how the heck that fuzzy area could be interpreted in court. --Rednaxela 15:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No worries, it's a thorny issue. As Rednaxela pointed out, if you read some code then reproduce it from memory (which could be inadvertent) then you've actually copied it. If your company wanted to be super cautious, you wouldn't be able to look at any open source code (imagine how much RWPCL you've read/created!) for fear that it might slip into your work. But folks in this community probably don't have lawyers on retainer or have a compelling motive to sue, like your competitors might. Patents are different, they can cover a "way of doing things" (there are ridiculous patents that have been applied for, such as how swing on a swingset) and can cover ideas and concepts. But they're not automatic, you have to apply for one and it must be reviewed before it can be granted. It would be interesting if ABC were to patent Wave Surfing. =) More info on wikipedia/IP --Darkcanuck 15:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, my company is super cautious, and I actually did have to get specific permission to read/publish Robocode-related open source stuff, though I knew it would probably fly under the radar anyway. Producing for our IP lawyers a list of all the open source bots I'd looked at was quite tedious (and probably more so for them). --Voidious 15:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)