Re: full disclosure of methods?

[st-amant { *at * } cgl.ucsf.edu (Alain St-Amant)]

 Douglas Smith recently wrote in the current discussion on the disclosure
 of parameters:
 > Besides, who ever said we had to reveal all our secrets and make them
 > readily available and accessible?  When software copyrights and patents
 > really provide adequate protection, maybe I will agree with that attitude.
 I'll assume that Dr. Smith is referring to the specific algorithms that are
 implemented that make the program more efficient but do not affect the final
 results.  In which case, I might agree.
 Of course, I couldn't disagree more if he is referring to some development
 in the methodology that actually affects the final results in any way.
 The point that interests me however, is the question of software copyrights
 and patents to which Dr. Smith alludes.  I have been trying to get a feel
 for what can be copyrighted and patented and I get a different answer from
 everyone.  Can only specific code be copyrighted or can the structure and
 algorithms be copyrighted as well?  How 'modified' should code be before
 it can be called legally (and ethically if anyone is interested in expressing
 an opinion) a new program?  Or is it simply forbidden for code to
 "evolve"
 into a new program?
 I will summarize to the net any e-mail sent to me, but I think that this would
 make for an interesting discussion and it would be as interesting to hear how
 people feel it "should be" as opposed to how it "is".
 Sincerely,
 Alain St-Amant
 Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry
 University of California, San Francisco