 Phil Steitz <steitzp@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The dodgy bit is that someone
> else who did the same
> derivation and ended up with a similar
> implementation (e.g. NR) might
> claim
> ownership of the algorithm itself. This is why the
> limitation expressed
> in the
> NR copyright statement is important.
In the US, at least, one cannont copyright or patent a "bare algorithm."
Mathematical formulae and algorithms of a purely mathematical nature are
deemed "ideas."
This fact alone is of course not enough to prevent somone from taking you
to court, where you'd then have to prove that your software really was
nothing more than a mathematical algorithm expressed in code. For a
mathematical library, it would seem a relatively easy thing to prove.
Of course, IANAL.
