Re: default colormap

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 10:23 +0000, Carlo De Falco wrote:
> IIRC the point is that it seems TMW are claiming "intellectual
> property" rights over the colormap itself, not the code that
> implements it.

I know what you're talking about it. This is just posturing and
scare-mongering from one Mathworks employee that has no idea how the
law works. Of course if you ask the Mathworks "can we use this?"
they're going to say "no". Their entire business is based on saying
"no".

Intellectual property, legally speaking, does not exist. I can't
imagine they've trademarked, patented, or copyrighted those colours,
and if they have, I can't imagine how that can be any different than
Jet. Moreoever, if they have, what viridis is doing by changing it
slightly but still looking almost exactly like parula does not make it
any less derivative (in the case of copyrights) nor less functional
(in the case of patents). In the absurd case that they trademarked the
colours (and we should investigate), maybe you can argue that changing
their name from parula to viridis can avoid their trademark.

> After all, do we really need compatibility at this level?

Our users demand exact compatibility, and I do not believe the
"intellectual property" bullshit that Steve Eddins is trying to scare
us with.

- Jordi G. H.