Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.21.MISMATCH!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad.highwinds-media.com!newsfe12.iad.POSTED!8ad76e89!not-for-mail From: Arved Sandstrom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_And_The_Award_For_Most_Legall?= =?windows-1252?Q?y-Encumbered_=93Hello_World=94_Program_=2E=2E=2E?= References: <9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17ee4@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <5b0642c5-0634-4b8b-98fc-e9bfcbba1064@b42g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 65 Message-ID: X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsgroups-download.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 09:56:33 UTC Organization: Public Usenet Newsgroup Access Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 06:56:34 -0300 Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:4933 On 11-06-02 09:50 PM, Paul Cager wrote: > On Jun 2, 9:22 pm, Arved Sandstrom > wrote: >> On 11-06-02 08:34 AM, Paul Cager wrote: >> >>> On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro >> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: >>>> In message >>>> <9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Paul >> >>>> Cager wrote: >>>>> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good >>>>> thing, isn't it? >> >>>> It would if the code were worth copyrighting. >> >>> You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a >>> license. >> >> Who's talking about a license? Oracle is attempting to copyright that >> HelloWorld code. > > No, I'm afraid that's not true. The first couple of lines define the > copyright _holders_, but the rest of it is the _license_ (a BSD > license in this case). > > The distinction is important. This isn't a case of Oracle trying to > "claim" something as their own and prevent others using it; rather > Oracle are explicitly giving us permission to use their work. Now for > a 5 line "Hello World" program it probably doesn't make much > _practical_ difference as no-one's going to complain if you copy it > without permission (even assuming it wasn't classed as a derived > work). But for larger bodies of code (such as the JDK) having that > license boiler plate is very significant; without a Free license > projects such as OpenJDK would not be possible. > > Much as I enjoy Oracle-bashing it seems quite wrong to portray > granting a Free software license as something bad. > > Tongue-in-cheek definitions: > Copyright: I wrote this code so I'm the only one who can use it. You > can write your own version, but don't copy mine. > Copyright + License: I wrote this code but you can use it as well > (subject to terms & conditions...). > Software Patent: I don't care who wrote this code; just send me the > money every time you use it. OK, fair enough. I understand the distinction, it's just that it's irritating me enormously to see anyone even bothering to discuss the license part. There is no license if there is no copyright, and for this example (although there are many others out there) NO copyright exists. Oracle *copied* that code - they have no copyright. They can't license that software because they don't have copyright. It's not up to them to "explicitly give us permission to use their work", because in this case it's not their bloody work. There is boilerplate there that looks like BSD license fluff, but it's not a license because nothing exists to be licensed. This is not about Oracle bashing at all, although they clearly have some stupid lawyers and fearful developers (*somebody* had to meekly put that boilerplate in, and it wasn't a lawyer). This is about *us* being aware of what can be copyrighted, licensed and patented. AHS