I think the question can be summarized as “do companies have an obligation of mean or an obligation of result in searching for similar code.”
I unless you have a search engine that can search all code across all repository, public or not, it is pretty hard to ask for an obligation of result.
Moreover, in many countries you cannot copyright the code itself, but you can copyright complete algorithm (RSA would be a good example, but not the code implementation itself), or a specific feature (minigames during loading time).
Note that I do not say itis right to do so, I’m all for opensource softwares, but I take into account that some people make a living from their inventions, so I’m generally in favor of limited copyright protection (in terms of both duration and scope).
An invention property, a software engineer code, or anything like that, should be shared by both the inventor (for inventing it in the firstplace), and the one financing it (for paying for it), at least until it pays back the money invested.
I have always thought that copyright on code is a bit pointless. Its like copyrighting engineering formulas and calculations. Given a particular problem, there are obvious solutions. The process should not be copyrightable.
I am also anti-copyrighting of features and ideas.
The only thing that should be copyrightable is the result of an technological or human investment, not the process and method for getting there.
That and copyright protection period should be shorter and non renewable.
Idealy feature or idea shouldn’t be copyrightable, but to acheive that we have to find ways to make sure those who work on those new featurea and idea can live decently.
If you work for years on something new, to see it immediately copied by someone who drown your product with cheaper copies, that’d kinda be disheartening for anyone.
What I think would be ideal would be a standard license fee. One cannot prevent other from copying that idea, but one has to pay a reasonable sum to the owner of the idea until the R&D costs are paid (maybe a bit more so it can grow and invest in costlier invention), after which it becomes public domain.
In all cases, credits are to be given to the inventor, a way or another.
I think the question can be summarized as “do companies have an obligation of mean or an obligation of result in searching for similar code.”
I unless you have a search engine that can search all code across all repository, public or not, it is pretty hard to ask for an obligation of result.
Moreover, in many countries you cannot copyright the code itself, but you can copyright complete algorithm (RSA would be a good example, but not the code implementation itself), or a specific feature (minigames during loading time).
Note that I do not say itis right to do so, I’m all for opensource softwares, but I take into account that some people make a living from their inventions, so I’m generally in favor of limited copyright protection (in terms of both duration and scope).
An invention property, a software engineer code, or anything like that, should be shared by both the inventor (for inventing it in the firstplace), and the one financing it (for paying for it), at least until it pays back the money invested.
I have always thought that copyright on code is a bit pointless. Its like copyrighting engineering formulas and calculations. Given a particular problem, there are obvious solutions. The process should not be copyrightable.
I am also anti-copyrighting of features and ideas.
The only thing that should be copyrightable is the result of an technological or human investment, not the process and method for getting there.
That and copyright protection period should be shorter and non renewable.
I think we mostly agree on that.
Idealy feature or idea shouldn’t be copyrightable, but to acheive that we have to find ways to make sure those who work on those new featurea and idea can live decently.
If you work for years on something new, to see it immediately copied by someone who drown your product with cheaper copies, that’d kinda be disheartening for anyone.
What I think would be ideal would be a standard license fee. One cannot prevent other from copying that idea, but one has to pay a reasonable sum to the owner of the idea until the R&D costs are paid (maybe a bit more so it can grow and invest in costlier invention), after which it becomes public domain.
In all cases, credits are to be given to the inventor, a way or another.