--- Stavros Macrakis <stavros.macrakis@verizon.net> wrote:
> > 5) Unfortunately, I don't completely agree that it "doesn't hurt to
> > ask." In the worst-case scenario, a publisher could decide to
> > follow our progress in creating a free table of integrals and
> > object whenever we added one from their table.
>
> If we ask and they say "no", then it is clear we have to be careful
> about the integrals we add.
That's the point - ideally, we shouldn't need to be, particularly if it
cripples our software. If we don't use CRC as source material, then
there can be no question that we are legit.
> But we have at least demonstrated good
> faith. If they say "no", then we will have to (e.g.) use multiple
> sources, e.g. CRC + Abramovitz & Stegun (public domain) + Gradshteyn
> & Ryzhik (Academic Press in the US), and not just depend on any one
> list of integrals. As I said before, it is not enough to copy only
> the integration *problems*. To the extent using CRC's formulae can
> be considered copyright infringement at all (and I think that is
> extremely questionable), it applies as much to the problems alone as
> to the problems with the solutions (on the theory that someone
> expended intellectual effort to choose the problems).
We actually don't want to have any special "arrangement" at all with
CRC to allow us to use their tables. We are a GPL software program,
and if someone really wanted to they could take our integral tables
from the source code and publish them, very neatly making money and
distributing the modified source at the same time. Of course, anyone
could take those tables and do the same thing, but by this time CRC
would be majorly pissed off. So you can be sure whatever arrangement
they would agree to would be incompatible with the GPL anyway. We need
to roll our own. It's the only clean way. I'm sure we can check the
correctness of our results against the various standard tables (which
is after all one of their functions) but we have to get there from
public sources.
> It is not enough for the publisher to notice that we have used a
> formula that they have published: a formula in isolation is not
> copyrightable at all. They would have to show that we are
> systematically using their list of formulas and not adding
significant
> intellectual effort of our own, e.g. cross-checking against other
> tables, evaluating the usefulness of the formulae by our own
criteria,
> etc.
If we have our own systematic process which clearly does not involve
the copying of CRC tables, that's our best position. And that means
in some form rolling our own solution. For some of the most difficult
integrals that may demand taking our results from published sources,
and then we do indeed have to do as much literature/cross checking/etc.
as possible, both for our own protection against such action and to
ensure correctness. Probably in those cases we would also want to have
included in the table itself documentation as to where the results came
from, so if there is doubt the original sources could be checked.
> As for the danger of drawing CRC's attention to us, the main danger
> that I would see is *not* that they would watch us more closely (do
> they really have the staff to do that?) but that if we did something
> they explicitly asked us not to do, we might be considered to be
> showing bad faith. But we already know that (e.g.) copying their
list
> of integrals bodily is not a good idea. Note that they have to be
> careful in what they say not to undermine *their own* legal position
> with respect to previous publishers of tables of integrals. After
> all, their tables are not original to them either. As I said in the
> previous message, if they gave us *explicit* permission, they would
> not have to concede that their own copying might be illegitimate.
I'm not terribly qualified to comment on this, but a couple points to
think about:
a) You're logically correct about them not having control over the
mathematical formula themselves.
b) Lawyers don't need logic, or even a strong case, to cause trouble.
If CRC decided, for whatever reason, they wanted to bother us, they
could. That is Jim's point. Their case could have no merit whatsoever
and still be a huge headache for us. They don't have to worry about us
challenging their position because the only way that challenge would
carry any weight is with court action, or at least the threat of it.
We don't have that ability.
c) You'd be surprised how picky lawyers can be about things we think
are of little consequence. It really wouldn't be hard to watch what we
do with Maxima - the cvs list is a complete catalog.
> I wonder if the AMS or the EFF have working groups on issues of
> mathematical copyright? It would certainly be good to have relevant
> public opinion on our side. Even better if there were a legal
> defense fund.... How do other free software efforts pay for legal
and
> PR services?
Usually no one bothers them, and in the rare cases wher it happens the
EFF often is the place to turn. But we don't want that. That takes
time, energy, and resources away from Maxima itself. We just want to
create great math software, not fight with corporations.
I like Richard's idea of systematically using primitatives to build a
table. That is an excellent way of approaching things that has many
potential uses besides making things clean legally.
Of course, this is just one non-lawyers opinion.
CY
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/