Title: Editorial

Recently someone complained that the code provided in an implantation of a Standard C++ Library was close to unreadable. This they claimed was unacceptable because it made it difficult for people to learn from the code. Putting aside other issues such as the need for readable diagnostics when the compiler complains about an attempt to instantiate a template, there is the serious issue as to whether you should be studying other people's code unless explicit consent has been given.

In most countries IPR legislation is quite clear that it covers more than straight copying. Derivative works are prohibited unless consent has been given, and the owner of the original can make reasonable conditions. If I wrote a children's novel that any reader familiar with the writing of J.K. Rowling recognised as being against the same background as she uses for her Harry Potter books, I would be in trouble. It would be no use my claiming that I had a new story and different protagonists, my work would be derivative. Of course there are corner cases where it might be difficult to decide whether I had crossed the line. However my point is that IPR law is about much more than literal copying. I might even still be in trouble if I could demonstrate that I had never read any of her books, nor any description of them.

It is sometimes stated that you cannot copyright ideas, but reality is not so simple. If your expression of an idea is clearly based on someone else's published expression of the same idea you have a possible problem. Please note that I am not writing about patents (I think the original fundamentals of patents have been seriously abused recently - the intent was that inventors should be rewarded for sharing their inventions with others, not that they should be able to prevent others from using or developing ideas. It was supposed to be a way to reduce the prevalence of trade secrets).

Now if you study someone else's source code in order to improve your programming knowledge, should you not be paying them for that? Template technology means that libraries just about have to be shipped to you in source code. Consideration for the needs met when debugging just about requires some degree of readability for source code. But you bought the code to use in your programmes, so that the compiler could convert it to relevant object code, and can generate understandable diagnostics. You did not buy (or at least the vendor did not usually sell you a licence) the right to use the code as a study aid.

Just because you can is not a justification for doing something. Just because you can generate source form Java bytecode does not justify your assuming that you are allowed to. Part of being a professional is to develop a sense of respect for the rights of fellow professionals. Once you have taken time to study commercial code you leave yourself wide open to accusations IP theft. Arguments about the law leave me profoundly unimpressed. If studying someone else's work without permission enables you to benefit then you owe them a debt.

Keep in mind that even owning something does not give you unlimited rights on how it is used. Buying a music CD does not allow you to provide public concerts (even free ones, I wish some copyright owners would take action against those who insist on polluting public places with unwanted renditions of commercial recordings).

I would hope that my readers would want to support all efforts to ensure that others get just rewards for their intellectual work and property. I think attempts to patent ideas are an abuse of IPR but I also thing that using the work and ideas of others without their consent can, and too often is, another form of abuse. People should be rewarded for sharing their ideas and insights. Artists should be rewarded for giving pleasure (sadly we have a habit of throwing obscene amounts of money at a tiny number while letting the rest live on a pittance.) Inventors and those adding technical insights are also entitled to a reward and we should be doing our best to see they get it rather than looking for clever ways that we can rip them off and complaining that they do not make such theft easy enough.

I try to write these editorials to stimulate thought. I often take an argumentative or extreme position. I hope that a crop of letters, emails etc. will result. Taking the time to respond to an editorial (or anything else published here) is a way of thanking contributors for the effort they put in.

My last editorial caused a considerable flurry of discussion on accu-general. Unfortunately, from my perspective, the discussion was almost entirely there and under the rules that then existed I have no right to republish that material here. I believe that ACCU are about to change the rules so that those that post to our mailing lists implicitly agree to republication by ACCU elsewhere. However, I believe that it is a point of courtesy that if you comment publicly on what we publish, you should consider copying such comments to both the editor of the publication (me for C Vu, John Merrells for Overload) and to the author of the material (if different). None of us minds correction, or disagreement as long as a modicum of respect is retained. You may believe that something is plain wrong, misguided or even dangerous but you would gain nothing by abusive assertions instead of rational argument or clearly written dissent.

I do not follow accu-general for two reasons. Being naturally argumentative it would consume far too much of my time. I would also be in danger of breaching other people's IPRs by having material on my machine that was accidentally republished without consent. If you write to me at editor@accu.org I know that material not explicitly marked as private can be published. That keeps things simple for me.

I hope that you are one of many members that I will see at our conference in March. Like many things we do, it relies on your support to make it work. I can help get some of the best speakers in the World and persuade an organiser to take a gamble on keeping costs down, but only for so long. For me, a large turnout is its own reward for all the wheeling and dealing I do. For the speakers, it makes them and their friends want to come again (and remember they get nothing other than genuine, unpadded expenses - some even forgo those). For the organisers, it enables them to cover their costs and encourages them to do it again. You may not be familiar with all the speakers, but everyone of them who is not already widely known and respected in the software development community will become so in the next few years.

Whether you can come or not, please do your bit to promote the event to friends and colleagues.