Code Plagiarism

concept of plagiarism is generally scorned at, as it is considered inappropriate for anyone to use another’s job without attributing it to them. In learning centers around the world, plagiarism often leads to punishment for the perpetrator. Software has been created to help instructors detect this vice with a relatively high degree of confidence. To accommodate the meeting of thoughts, a small percentage of unoriginality is allowed, but not anything higher than this. On another note, plagiarism is not always an evil thing. It can be attributed to immeasurable successes that otherwise would not have been achieved. This is especially the case of computer programming. In this field, it is common for website developers to allow external usage of their work. This practice has been endorsed by big companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter.

Computer programmers use computer language to develop various programs. There are three levels of computer language which range from high to low. The highest level computer language is also known as basic language. It employs the English language along with numbers and symbols to develop it. Understanding this language is relatively easy compared to other levels. A lower level is referred to as a source code language. This level consists of alphanumeric numerals rather than English words as is the case in the Basic language (like the use of ADC to mean add with carry). The lowest level is the machine or binary language. This consists of a series of two symbols, 0 and 1 (like the use of 01101001 to mean save after adding two numbers). Statements which are written in this code are said to be written in object code (Apple Computer, Inc, V. Franklin Computer Corporation 1244).

Object code is the only language that computers understand. On the other hand, programs are written in source code as it is easier for humans to understand. It is then converted to object language by feeding them to a compiler. Object code is the only format in which programs are distributed (Apple Computer, Inc, V. Franklin Computer Corporation 1244). Computer programs are either categorized as operating system or application programs. The former provides the stage over which the computer runs. On the other hand, the latter helps in running specific functions on the computer. A good example of a computer application is one that runs a game or a word processing application.

Without the open use of previous programs, it would have been very difficult to develop the programming language itself. The availability of this option has made it easy for programmers to develop applications that would not be possible in the past. In essence, the platforms that have already been laid have made it completely easy to create a website such that it would be very difficult to build a big website with numerous functionalities from scratch.

Seemingly, technology is created in such way that future knowledge is derived from previous one. All inventions that have been made in the world of technology are borrowed from previous work. As Gibson (55) notes, reuse of old software in generating “new” software is a common occurrence. It enables the improvement of previous technology and its advancement. Even then, Gibson feels that the concept of re-use is widely misunderstood. He feels that re-using software is complicated, especially when it has to be done in a controlled environment. Removing the control of such materials enables the quality of the software to be enhanced. Any software is, however, likely to be considered as incompetent if the re-use of other people’s is inappropriate.

There is a need for regulations on the way software should be re-used without engaging in unethical practices. Gibson campaigns for a code of practice that clarifies what is unethical and what is ethical, offers recommendations on how to avoid such unethical practices, provides a framework that helps individuals not to be accused of unethical practices, and equips examiners with a system of checking for plagiarism in a regular and reliable manner (56). The code of practice should also see the improvement of the produced software. The practice of this type of code would help in the field of computer programming.

Notably, Gibson argues that the code of practice is likely to limit the development of new software (56). System requirements may also be imposed on the person re-using the software. Such restrictions may limit (even prohibit in certain situations) the reuse of a software. He, however, feels that the need to develop such a code is more advantageous than limiting. In cases where the restraint surpasses the advantages, relevant authorities should be in a position to appropriately resolve such matters to ensure that available code is useable for advancement. He suggests that a good plagiarism code of practice should consist of wider policies on plagiarism, fair and easy to understand, use, and implement.

In a court case filed against Franklin Computer Corporation by Apple Computers Inc., the accused was found to be using 11 of Apple’s programs by only making minor alterations to the programs, such as removal of the name Apple on the programs. The intention of Franklin was to develop a computer that was capable of running the software that was developed by Apple. It sued the company on various counts, including infringement of copyright laws (Apple Computer, Inc, V. Franklin Computer Corporation 1244).

In the ruling by the court it was determined that Franklin had infringed the copyrights which belonged to Apple. They were, therefore, required to stop the usage of such programs that were contested, or were directed to agree with the company for a proper compensation of the programs. In the case between Apple and Franklin, there was an obvious infringement of copyright, thus, the works which belonged to the former had been plagiarized (Apple Computer, Inc, V. Franklin Computer Corporation 1244). Franklin was in a position to use the programs they had obtained from Apple to understand how their computers worked. With this information, they were also capable of developing both software and hardware in such a way that there was compatibility between the programs of the two companies (Apple Computer, Inc, V. Franklin Computer Corporation 1244). The case displays a need for a code of practice. With this in place, Franklin Company would have been in a better position to develop their programs in such a way that they would not be engaged in unethical programs.

In conclusion, the use of each other’s work is important for the advancement of technology. The layering of programs enables the creation of programs that otherwise would be termed as impossible to create. It is, however, important that the re-use of such programs is significant in the field of programming and improvement of the program. It is also important that one cites any work that is not originally his/hers.

Works Cited

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240 – 1255(3d Cir. 1983).

Gibson, J. Paul. ‘Software Reuse and Plagiarism’. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 41.3 (2009): 55-56. Web.

Perry, Janett. ‘Plagiarism in Code’. Ithenticate.com. N.p., 2014. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.