Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #12065 > unrolled thread

"Borrowing" code

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  "Borrowing" code Novice <novice@example..com> - 2012-02-16 19:50 +0000
    Re: "Borrowing" code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-02-16 20:28 +0000
    Re: "Borrowing" code Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-16 12:59 -0800
      Re: "Borrowing" code Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-02-16 13:51 -0800
        Re: "Borrowing" code Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-02-16 15:03 -0800
          Re: "Borrowing" code Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 01:21 -0800
            Re: "Borrowing" code Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-02-17 11:29 -0800
              Re: "Borrowing" code Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 11:51 -0800
                Re: "Borrowing" code Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-02-17 17:50 -0400
                  Re: "Borrowing" code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-02-17 22:36 +0000
                  Re: "Borrowing" code Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 23:27 -0800
                    Re: "Borrowing" code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-02-18 15:11 +0000
                      Re: "Borrowing" code Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-18 10:28 -0800
                        Re: "Borrowing" code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-02-18 20:08 +0000
                          Re: "Borrowing" code Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-02-18 16:46 -0400
                            Re: "Borrowing" code BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-20 01:58 -0700
                    Re: "Borrowing" code Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-02-18 13:03 -0400
                      Re: "Borrowing" code Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-18 10:31 -0800
                      Re: "Borrowing" code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-02-18 20:15 +0000
                    Re: "Borrowing" code Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-02-19 19:46 -0800
                      Re: "Borrowing" code Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-02-19 23:08 -0600
                        Re: "Borrowing" code Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-02-20 09:17 -0800
                      Re: "Borrowing" code Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2012-02-20 09:32 +0000
                        Re: "Borrowing" code Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-02-20 01:45 -0800
                          Re: "Borrowing" code BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-20 08:35 -0700
                        Re: "Borrowing" code Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-02-20 03:59 -0600
              Re: "Borrowing" code Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-17 17:00 -0500
                Re: "Borrowing" code Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2012-02-17 16:08 -0600
                  Re: "Borrowing" code Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-17 17:14 -0500
              Re: "Borrowing" code George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2012-02-17 18:00 -0500
                Re: "Borrowing" code Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-02-17 21:54 -0400
            Re: "Borrowing" code Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-17 17:10 -0500
              Re: "Borrowing" code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-02-17 22:42 +0000
                Re: "Borrowing" code Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-02-17 15:22 -0800
                  Re: "Borrowing" code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-02-18 01:37 +0000
                    Re: "Borrowing" code Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-02-19 19:51 -0800
        Re: "Borrowing" code Novice <novice@example..com> - 2012-02-16 23:37 +0000
        Re: "Borrowing" code Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 01:26 -0800
      Re: "Borrowing" code Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-02-16 19:36 -0400
        Re: "Borrowing" code Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-02-16 22:15 -0600
        Re: "Borrowing" code Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 01:41 -0800
      Re: "Borrowing" code Novice <novice@example..com> - 2012-02-16 23:36 +0000
        Re: "Borrowing" code Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-16 18:42 -0500
    Re: "Borrowing" code BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-16 15:19 -0700
      Re: "Borrowing" code Novice <novice@example..com> - 2012-02-16 23:50 +0000
        Re: "Borrowing" code Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 01:57 -0800
          Re: "Borrowing" code Novice <novice@example..com> - 2012-02-17 17:09 +0000
            Re: "Borrowing" code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-02-17 18:45 +0000
              [OT] Harry Potter copyright claims (Was: "Borrowing" code) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 11:00 -0800
                Re: [OT] Harry Potter copyright claims (Was: "Borrowing" code) Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-02-17 11:36 -0800
              Re: "Borrowing" code Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2012-02-20 09:41 +0000
            Re: "Borrowing" code Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 10:34 -0800
            Re: "Borrowing" code Bent C Dalager <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> - 2012-02-18 00:08 +0000
    Re: "Borrowing" code Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-02-16 18:14 -0500
    Re: "Borrowing" code Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-16 18:37 -0500
      Re: "Borrowing" code Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-02-16 17:39 -0800
    Re: "Borrowing" code Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-02-16 20:34 -0500
    Re: "Borrowing" code Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-02-16 18:01 -0800
      Re: "Borrowing" code Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-16 21:18 -0500
      Re: "Borrowing" code Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-02-16 20:26 -0800
      Re: "Borrowing" code Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-02-16 20:32 -0800
      Re: "Borrowing" code BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-17 00:25 -0700
      Re: "Borrowing" code Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 02:01 -0800
      Re: "Borrowing" code Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2012-02-17 11:36 +0000
    Was: "Borrowing" code -  Links for budding copyright lawyers Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-02-17 17:29 -0500
    Re: "Borrowing" code Novice <novice@example..com> - 2012-02-20 19:22 +0000

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#12065 — "Borrowing" code

I'm curious to know the legalities involved in "borrowing" code without 
paying for it.

Let me clarify. Let's say that I find some code snippets or even entire 
classes, displayed on websites and that it would save me time and money 
to use those classes in my own projects. This web site, www.java2s.com, 
is just one of many such web sites on the Internet, as is the Java 
Tutorial at the Oracle website.

Assuming I make no claim that I am the author (by leaving the @author 
Javadoc tag empty), am I "stealing" this code? What if I cite the author 
name in the @author tag (or the URL of the webpage in a comment if the 
author's name isn't present in the code)? Or would I have to get written 
permission of the author or website to use the code? Or even obtain a 
licence before I can use the code?

Code published in web pages or newsgroup posts "feels" as if it should be 
in the public domain but I think that's just wishful thinking on my part. 
Given that you can look at it without paying anyone for that privilege, 
and copy it into your own IDE and try it, etc. it feels as if it is there 
to be used. But as I understand it, those who create written works, 
whether books or programs, are their owners (unless in the employ of 
others) and retain copyright on this work, a copyright that typically 
lasts for the developer's life plus 70 years. 

If copyright does apply to all these snippets and example classes, would 
I be able to bypass copyright by modifying the code in some small way - 
maybe just with some comments or different variable names - or would that 
be the equivalent of painting a stolen car: it doesn't negate the fact 
that it's stolen and just tries to make it less obvious?

I've been banging my head against a wall for a while on a couple of 
classes my project needs and I have found two perfectly good classes that 
meet my needs so I'd like to use them rather than put still more time 
into making my own classes work satisfactorily. I'd like to figure out 
what I can do to use the clases I found without having to look over my 
shoulder (or fight my conscience) on the question of "stealing" this 
code.

-- 
Novice

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#12066

Novice <novice@example..com> wrote:
> I'm curious to know the legalities involved in "borrowing" code without 
> paying for it.

> Let me clarify. Let's say that I find some code snippets or even entire 
> classes, displayed on websites and that it would save me time and money 
> to use those classes in my own projects. This web site, www.java2s.com, 

(snip)
> If copyright does apply to all these snippets and example classes, would 
> I be able to bypass copyright by modifying the code in some small way - 
> maybe just with some comments or different variable names - or would that 
> be the equivalent of painting a stolen car: it doesn't negate the fact 
> that it's stolen and just tries to make it less obvious?

The general rule is that copyright protects the expression,
not the idea. Exactly how much modification you need to make
is not so well defined. (IANAL, as usual.)  

But no, it isn't very much like painting a stolen car. 
Remember, it is the intellectual property we are talking about,
not the physical property. You can own a physical object without
owning the copyright to it, as is commonly true with studio
portraits. You own the print, the studio the copyright, even
though it is a picture of you!

> I've been banging my head against a wall for a while on a 
> couple of classes my project needs and I have found two 
> perfectly good classes that meet my needs so I'd like to 
> use them rather than put still more time into making my 
> own classes work satisfactorily. 

I don't know the details very well. Usually if it is pretty
small, I wouldn't worry about it, if larger you should at least
acknowlege the source. If it is on a public web site with
no notice, then I would worry less than some other places.

-- glen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12067

Novice wrote:
> I'm curious to know the legalities involved in "borrowing" code without 
> paying for it.

It depends entirely on the license for that code.

> Let me clarify. Let's say that I find some code snippets or even entire 
> classes, displayed on websites and that it would save me time and money 
> to use those classes in my own projects. This web site, www.java2s.com, 
> is just one of many such web sites on the Internet, as is the Java 
> Tutorial at the Oracle website.

Can you spell "plagiarism"? How about "lawsuit"?

> Assuming I make no claim that I am the author (by leaving the @author 
> Javadoc tag empty), am I "stealing" this code? What if I cite the author 

Yes, if you violate the license it's still stealing (and no quotes around it, either - putting quotes around "stealing" doesn't make the act more ethical). 
"@author" Javadoc tags have nothing at all whatsoever to do with claiming 
authorship.

> name in the @author tag (or the URL of the webpage in a comment if the 
> author's name isn't present in the code)? Or would I have to get written 
> permission of the author or website to use the code? Or even obtain a 
> licence before I can use the code?

You obtain a license in accordance with the terms of the license. Copyright 
inheres upon authorship, at least in U.S. law, and thus you are obligated to 
respect it regardless of source. Each program is released under different 
terms; you must respect the terms on a case-by-case basis or you're liable.

> Code published in web pages or newsgroup posts "feels" as if it should be 
> in the public domain but I think that's just wishful thinking on my part.

Yes, that's true.  "Feels" is not a legal basis (nor an engineering one, unless 
your professional intuition is very well honed) for action.
 
> Given that you can look at it without paying anyone for that privilege, 
> and copy it into your own IDE and try it, etc. it feels as if it is there 

There's that "feels" again. Tsk, tsk.

> to be used. But as I understand it, those who create written works, 
> whether books or programs, are their owners (unless in the employ of 
> others) and retain copyright on this work, a copyright that typically 
> lasts for the developer's life plus 70 years. 

The term depends on the jurisdiction, the work, when and how it was published, 
and whether it was done for hire, anonymously, pseudonymously, or otherwise.

> If copyright does apply to all these snippets and example classes, would 
> I be able to bypass copyright by modifying the code in some small way - 
> maybe just with some comments or different variable names - or would that 
> be the equivalent of painting a stolen car: it doesn't negate the fact 
> that it's stolen and just tries to make it less obvious?

Why are you so anxious to bypass copyright? Are you a criminal?

> I've been banging my head against a wall for a while on a couple of 
> classes my project needs and I have found two perfectly good classes that 
> meet my needs so I'd like to use them rather than put still more time 
> into making my own classes work satisfactorily. I'd like to figure out 
> what I can do to use the clases I found without having to look over my 
> shoulder (or fight my conscience) on the question of "stealing" this 
> code.

If you're doing this in an academic environment, you should be worried about 
the rules for plagiarism, not the rules for copyright.

If you're doing this in a commercial environment, don't take risks. The entire 
tenor of your post is that of someone trying to skirt the rules. Bad boy!

If you're doing this for a review or satire, or for personal use, then "fair 
use" doctrine applies. Just don't go beyond fair-use boundaries.

BTW, asking a bunch of software guys for legal advice is absolutely a winning 
formula. Make sure to ask taxi drivers for medical advice and supermarket 
cashiers where to invest as well.  After all, many taxi drivers are pre-med 
majors, and some cashiers are studying for their MBAs. Heck, I've met 
supermarket cashiers who were attorneys. One-stop shopping - bread, milk, 
cigarettes, investment advice and legal counsel. Did you remember your courtesy 
card for the discount?

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12070

On 2/16/2012 12:59 PM, Lew wrote:
...
> BTW, asking a bunch of software guys for legal advice is absolutely a winning
> formula. Make sure to ask taxi drivers for medical advice and supermarket
> cashiers where to invest as well.  ...

There is one situation in which asking a programmer about this is useful
- asking the author of the code about a proposed use.

The first step should, of course, be to look at the code itself and the
web site for licensing information. The next step, if the code contains
a copyright notice, an @author tag, or other indication of authorship,
should be to try to contact the author.

Patricia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12073

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:51:34 -0800, Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>
wrote:

>On 2/16/2012 12:59 PM, Lew wrote:
>...
>> BTW, asking a bunch of software guys for legal advice is absolutely a winning
>> formula. Make sure to ask taxi drivers for medical advice and supermarket
>> cashiers where to invest as well.  ...
>
>There is one situation in which asking a programmer about this is useful
>- asking the author of the code about a proposed use.
>
>The first step should, of course, be to look at the code itself and the
>web site for licensing information. The next step, if the code contains
>a copyright notice, an @author tag, or other indication of authorship,
>should be to try to contact the author.

     I agree with this.

     I also think that someone posting tutorial material that is
freely available on the Web can be presumed to be making it freely
available for use.  Otherwise, what is the point of the tutorial?  An
explicit copyright statement with the code would trump that though.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12113

On Thursday, February 16, 2012 3:03:04 PM UTC-8, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:51:34 -0800, Patricia Shanahan 
> 
> wrote:
> 
> >On 2/16/2012 12:59 PM, Lew wrote:
> >...
> >> BTW, asking a bunch of software guys for legal advice is absolutely a winning
> >> formula. Make sure to ask taxi drivers for medical advice and supermarket
> >> cashiers where to invest as well.  ...
> >
> >There is one situation in which asking a programmer about this is useful
> >- asking the author of the code about a proposed use.
> >
> >The first step should, of course, be to look at the code itself and the
> >web site for licensing information. The next step, if the code contains
> >a copyright notice, an @author tag, or other indication of authorship,
> >should be to try to contact the author.
> 
>      I agree with this.
> 
>      I also think that someone posting tutorial material that is
> freely available on the Web can be presumed to be making it freely
> available for use.  Otherwise, what is the point of the tutorial?  An
> explicit copyright statement with the code would trump that though.

It's too strong a conclusion, "freely" available. A tutorial's code very 
reasonably could be licensed only for personal use in service of learning the 
material in the tutorial. Presence in a tutorial is not presumptive evidence 
that code is licensed freely or in the public domain.

Regardless of our assumptions, the law is what prevails. In the U.S., the law 
does not require a copyright notice for there to be an enforceable copyright.

So while you may presume anything you want, presumptions not being things that 
require or benefit from evidence, that presumptuousness can lead you into 
trouble. The law will still hold you to account, and that trumps all 
presumption.

It's safer to assume, assumptions being things that can benefit from evidence. 
In the case of U.S. copyright law, the safe assumption is that the material is 
copyright, that the rights are restricted, and that you may not disseminate that expression beyond the boundaries of fair use, absent affirmative evidence 
otherwise.

That's also a safe conclusion. Conclusions are things that require evidence.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12133

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:21:42 -0800 (PST), Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, February 16, 2012 3:03:04 PM UTC-8, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:51:34 -0800, Patricia Shanahan 
>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >On 2/16/2012 12:59 PM, Lew wrote:
>> >...
>> >> BTW, asking a bunch of software guys for legal advice is absolutely a winning
>> >> formula. Make sure to ask taxi drivers for medical advice and supermarket
>> >> cashiers where to invest as well.  ...
>> >
>> >There is one situation in which asking a programmer about this is useful
>> >- asking the author of the code about a proposed use.
>> >
>> >The first step should, of course, be to look at the code itself and the
>> >web site for licensing information. The next step, if the code contains
>> >a copyright notice, an @author tag, or other indication of authorship,
>> >should be to try to contact the author.
>> 
>>      I agree with this.
>> 
>>      I also think that someone posting tutorial material that is
>> freely available on the Web can be presumed to be making it freely
>> available for use.  Otherwise, what is the point of the tutorial?  An
>> explicit copyright statement with the code would trump that though.
>
>It's too strong a conclusion, "freely" available. A tutorial's code very 
>reasonably could be licensed only for personal use in service of learning the 
>material in the tutorial. Presence in a tutorial is not presumptive evidence 
>that code is licensed freely or in the public domain.

     How would it be licenced without some sort of statement?  If
there is no such statement, then the code is freely available.  If
there is such a statement, then the code is not freely available.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12136

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>> It's too strong a conclusion, "freely" available. A tutorial's code very 
>> reasonably could be licensed only for personal use in service of learning the 
>> material in the tutorial. Presence in a tutorial is not presumptive evidence 
>> that code is licensed freely or in the public domain.
> 
>      How would it be licenced without some sort of statement? 

Exactly so. It wouldn't be.

Mere presence in a tutorial is not a license.

> If there is no such statement, then the code is freely available.  

Wrong. In most jurisdictions, certainly in the U.S., all rights are reserved by 
default. Ergo if there is no statement of license, then the code is completely 
unavailable, outside fair use. 

> If there is such a statement, then the code is not freely available.

Possibly. If the statement is "this code is freely available", then and only 
then is the code freely available.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12141

On 12-02-17 03:51 PM, Lew wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> Lew wrote:
>>> It's too strong a conclusion, "freely" available. A tutorial's code very 
>>> reasonably could be licensed only for personal use in service of learning the 
>>> material in the tutorial. Presence in a tutorial is not presumptive evidence 
>>> that code is licensed freely or in the public domain.
>>
>>      How would it be licenced without some sort of statement? 
> 
> Exactly so. It wouldn't be.
> 
> Mere presence in a tutorial is not a license.
> 
>> If there is no such statement, then the code is freely available.  
> 
> Wrong. In most jurisdictions, certainly in the U.S., all rights are reserved by 
> default. Ergo if there is no statement of license, then the code is completely 
> unavailable, outside fair use. 
[ SNIP ]

What do you do if you can find essentially the same code, except for WS
and variable names and such, on dozens of different websites?
Acknowledge everyone?

I'm not talking about plagiarism either. I'm talking about code snippets
that, given a certain situation, really won't deviate from a certain
form. Any adequate programmer, confronted with the same problem, would
arrive at essentially the same expression. There are numerous examples
of this on the Internet or in books or in magazines.

Code is not prose or poetry. That's why automatic copyright for source
code is a flawed concept. Ideally people should have to explain why they
think their code rates copyright. I understand that we shouldn't be
flouting the current (broken) system, but we shouldn't be passively
accepting it either.

I guarantee that each and every one of us writes code routinely,
independently and without copy & paste and without reference to others'
material, that could be attacked on the basis of copyright, simply
because someone published something basic. Are you cool with that?

AHS
-- 
...wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their
own government...
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1789

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12148

Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:

(snip describing convergent evolution of code)
> I'm not talking about plagiarism either. I'm talking about code snippets
> that, given a certain situation, really won't deviate from a certain
> form. Any adequate programmer, confronted with the same problem, would
> arrive at essentially the same expression. There are numerous examples
> of this on the Internet or in books or in magazines.

(snip)

> I guarantee that each and every one of us writes code routinely,
> independently and without copy & paste and without reference to others'
> material, that could be attacked on the basis of copyright, simply
> because someone published something basic. Are you cool with that?

I believe in the unix case, which this sounds like to me,
that they lost. Still, having to go to court to defend it, 
and that judges and juries may not understand something so
obvious to programmers, means it might be worth fixing.

-- glen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12160

On Friday, February 17, 2012 1:50:23 PM UTC-8, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> On 12-02-17 03:51 PM, Lew wrote:
> > Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> >> Lew wrote:
> >>> It's too strong a conclusion, "freely" available. A tutorial's code very 
> >>> reasonably could be licensed only for personal use in service of learning the 
> >>> material in the tutorial. Presence in a tutorial is not presumptive evidence 
> >>> that code is licensed freely or in the public domain.
> >>
> >>      How would it be licenced without some sort of statement? 
> > 
> > Exactly so. It wouldn't be.
> > 
> > Mere presence in a tutorial is not a license.
> > 
> >> If there is no such statement, then the code is freely available.  
> > 
> > Wrong. In most jurisdictions, certainly in the U.S., all rights are reserved by 
> > default. Ergo if there is no statement of license, then the code is completely 
> > unavailable, outside fair use. 
> [ SNIP ]
> 
> What do you do if you can find essentially the same code, except for WS
> and variable names and such, on dozens of different websites?
> Acknowledge everyone?

What?  Huh?  "Essentially the same code, except for" the things that make it 
different under copyright law? Where's the problem?

> I'm not talking about plagiarism either. I'm talking about code snippets
> that, given a certain situation, really won't deviate from a certain
> form. Any adequate programmer, confronted with the same problem, would
> arrive at essentially the same expression. There are numerous examples
> of this on the Internet or in books or in magazines.

This is a question of law. What does the law say?

AIUI, if you copy the same expression as a copyright work without permission, 
you have violated the copyright. That's the law. You can play the "how many 
angels can dance on the head of a pin?" game all you want, but absent the 
particulars of a given case you're just playing with yourself.

> Code is not prose or poetry. That's why automatic copyright for source
> code is a flawed concept. Ideally people should have to explain why they
> think their code rates copyright. I understand that we shouldn't be
> flouting the current (broken) system, but we shouldn't be passively
> accepting it either.
> 
> I guarantee that each and every one of us writes code routinely,
> independently and without copy & paste and without reference to others'
> material, that could be attacked on the basis of copyright, simply
> because someone published something basic. Are you cool with that?

You could write a Harry Potter novel without seeing the original work, too. 
J.K. Rowling could then sue you, as her publishers have done, and you would 
lose. Are you cool with that?

Copyright exists to protect the expression of a work. It has value. It '
prevents others from profiting from the copyright holder's work without 
sharing the profit, or at least getting permission. Yes, I'm cool with that.

You should be, too.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12161

Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> wrote:

(snip)
> AIUI, if you copy the same expression as a copyright work without permission, 
> you have violated the copyright. That's the law. You can play the "how many 
> angels can dance on the head of a pin?" game all you want, but absent the 
> particulars of a given case you're just playing with yourself.

There are many language constructs that are normally done the
same way, but not copied. It is likely possible to convince a
judge that something was copied when, in fact, it wasn't.

>> Code is not prose or poetry. That's why automatic copyright for source
>> code is a flawed concept. Ideally people should have to explain why they
>> think their code rates copyright. I understand that we shouldn't be
>> flouting the current (broken) system, but we shouldn't be passively
>> accepting it either.
 
>> I guarantee that each and every one of us writes code routinely,
>> independently and without copy & paste and without reference to others'
>> material, that could be attacked on the basis of copyright, simply
>> because someone published something basic. Are you cool with that?

> You could write a Harry Potter novel without seeing the original work, too. 
> J.K. Rowling could then sue you, as her publishers have done, and you would 
> lose. Are you cool with that?

There were stories about completely different versions of HP7
being released in China. That is, without seeing the original.
But suing in China isn't so easy.

> Copyright exists to protect the expression of a work. It has value. It '
> prevents others from profiting from the copyright holder's work without 
> sharing the profit, or at least getting permission. Yes, I'm cool with that.

-- glen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12164

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> Lew wrote:
> (snip)
> > AIUI, if you copy the same expression as a copyright work without permission, 
> > you have violated the copyright. That's the law. You can play the "how many 
> > angels can dance on the head of a pin?" game all you want, but absent the 
> > particulars of a given case you're just playing with yourself.
> 
> There are many language constructs that are normally done the
> same way, but not copied. It is likely possible to convince a
> judge that something was copied when, in fact, it wasn't.

You can play the "how many angels can dance on the head of a 
pin?" game all you want, but absent the particulars of a given 
case you're just playing with yourself.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12166

Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> wrote:

(snip)
> You can play the "how many angels can dance on the head of a 
> pin?" game all you want, but absent the particulars of a given 
> case you're just playing with yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO-Linux_controversies

There is much discussion, and links to other cases, in that.

One interesting one:

  "Since IBM released the relevant code under the terms of the GPL, it
  claims that the only permission that SCO has to copy and distribute
  IBM's code in Linux is under the terms and conditions of the GPL, one
  of which requires the distributor to "accept" the GPL. IBM says that
  SCO violated the GPL by denouncing the GPL's validity, and by claiming
  that the GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright,
  antitrust and export control laws."

I hadn't known before that denouncing GPL was a violation of it.
I wonder if that would be upheld against freedom of speach.

The one specific case of copied code involves "errho.h".

Also, in the "SCO and SGI" section:

   "The code did not do anything. It was in a part of the Linux kernel
    that was written in anticipation of a Silicon Graphics architecture
    that was never released.

    It had already been removed from the kernel two months earlier.

    The contested segment was small (80 lines) and trivial."

Size and triviality haven't been mentioned much in this thread.

More details on unix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi

  "The University also claimed that similar lines of source code (which
   were presented during discovery) did not infringe on USL's copyright
   because they had become public domain by the actions of AT&T: AT&T
   had promoted UNIX as a standard, licensing it to universities and
   allowing UNIX source code to be published in textbooks. The
   University submitted briefs from the UC Berkeley students and staff,
   explaining how they had audited the code, looking for freely
   available copies of the source code and methods. When they could find
   none, they said, they removed the code and rewrote it using publicly
   known techniques.and so any remaining similarities existed because
   AT&T had effectively abandoned the copyright to them."

Note (more details in the article) that one can lose copyright status.

Also, that code (and presumably also prose) too similar to already
public domain code can't be copyrighted. So, BSD didn't have to
rewrite all the potentially infringing code if they could make a
case for it already being public, or close enough to public
domain code.

Also interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud

-- glen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12168

On 12-02-18 04:08 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> (snip)
>> You can play the "how many angels can dance on the head of a 
>> pin?" game all you want, but absent the particulars of a given 
>> case you're just playing with yourself.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO-Linux_controversies
> 
> There is much discussion, and links to other cases, in that.
> 
> One interesting one:
> 
>   "Since IBM released the relevant code under the terms of the GPL, it
>   claims that the only permission that SCO has to copy and distribute
>   IBM's code in Linux is under the terms and conditions of the GPL, one
>   of which requires the distributor to "accept" the GPL. IBM says that
>   SCO violated the GPL by denouncing the GPL's validity, and by claiming
>   that the GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright,
>   antitrust and export control laws."
> 
> I hadn't known before that denouncing GPL was a violation of it.
> I wonder if that would be upheld against freedom of speach.

It's not a violation of any license to be critical of it. It _is_ a
violation to not only be critical but then to flout the license.

> The one specific case of copied code involves "errho.h".
> 
> Also, in the "SCO and SGI" section:
> 
>    "The code did not do anything. It was in a part of the Linux kernel
>     that was written in anticipation of a Silicon Graphics architecture
>     that was never released.
> 
>     It had already been removed from the kernel two months earlier.
> 
>     The contested segment was small (80 lines) and trivial."
> 
> Size and triviality haven't been mentioned much in this thread.

See the link I provide below.

I've mentioned triviality a few times. As far as I know "triviality"
actually subsumes other copyright concepts: originality, similarity
tests, de minimus copying, and so forth. For example, the amount of
copying may be so trivial that it is below the threshold for a
substantial similarity test; the defense may then be one of de minimus
copying.

I meant both that, and also originality. If there really is only one way
to express given functionality, it may not even be possible to copyright
the code in the first place.

There is no set minimum amount of code established by any jurisdiction
I've ever heard of. that would make no sense. In many languages 80 lines
of code is a large amount and it's almost not possible to write
something trivial in 80 lines. But that ~80 lines of code you mention
above might have been unoriginal.

> More details on unix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi
> 
>   "The University also claimed that similar lines of source code (which
>    were presented during discovery) did not infringe on USL's copyright
>    because they had become public domain by the actions of AT&T: AT&T
>    had promoted UNIX as a standard, licensing it to universities and
>    allowing UNIX source code to be published in textbooks. The
>    University submitted briefs from the UC Berkeley students and staff,
>    explaining how they had audited the code, looking for freely
>    available copies of the source code and methods. When they could find
>    none, they said, they removed the code and rewrote it using publicly
>    known techniques.and so any remaining similarities existed because
>    AT&T had effectively abandoned the copyright to them."
> 
> Note (more details in the article) that one can lose copyright status.
> 
> Also, that code (and presumably also prose) too similar to already
> public domain code can't be copyrighted. So, BSD didn't have to
> rewrite all the potentially infringing code if they could make a
> case for it already being public, or close enough to public
> domain code.
> 
> Also interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud
> 
> -- glen
> 
Also a very good read:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/originality-requirements.html

AHS
-- 
-- Gaiety is the most outstanding feature of the Soviet Union.
Josef Stalin, November 1935

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12181

On 2/18/2012 1:46 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> On 12-02-18 04:08 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>> Lew<lewbloch@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>> You can play the "how many angels can dance on the head of a
>>> pin?" game all you want, but absent the particulars of a given
>>> case you're just playing with yourself.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO-Linux_controversies
>>
>> There is much discussion, and links to other cases, in that.
>>
>> One interesting one:
>>
>>    "Since IBM released the relevant code under the terms of the GPL, it
>>    claims that the only permission that SCO has to copy and distribute
>>    IBM's code in Linux is under the terms and conditions of the GPL, one
>>    of which requires the distributor to "accept" the GPL. IBM says that
>>    SCO violated the GPL by denouncing the GPL's validity, and by claiming
>>    that the GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright,
>>    antitrust and export control laws."
>>
>> I hadn't known before that denouncing GPL was a violation of it.
>> I wonder if that would be upheld against freedom of speach.
>
> It's not a violation of any license to be critical of it. It _is_ a
> violation to not only be critical but then to flout the license.
>

yeah.
I am sometimes critical of the GPL, but I also generally respect its 
requirements.

hell, I would probably not have written my own 3D engine had I simply 
been able to "disregard" the GPL on the already existing Quake engine, 
as in my case my main reason for writing my engine as it exists was 
because I wasn't really happy in some ways with the GPL.


>> The one specific case of copied code involves "errho.h".
>>
>> Also, in the "SCO and SGI" section:
>>
>>     "The code did not do anything. It was in a part of the Linux kernel
>>      that was written in anticipation of a Silicon Graphics architecture
>>      that was never released.
>>
>>      It had already been removed from the kernel two months earlier.
>>
>>      The contested segment was small (80 lines) and trivial."
>>
>> Size and triviality haven't been mentioned much in this thread.
>
> See the link I provide below.
>
> I've mentioned triviality a few times. As far as I know "triviality"
> actually subsumes other copyright concepts: originality, similarity
> tests, de minimus copying, and so forth. For example, the amount of
> copying may be so trivial that it is below the threshold for a
> substantial similarity test; the defense may then be one of de minimus
> copying.
>
> I meant both that, and also originality. If there really is only one way
> to express given functionality, it may not even be possible to copyright
> the code in the first place.
>
> There is no set minimum amount of code established by any jurisdiction
> I've ever heard of. that would make no sense. In many languages 80 lines
> of code is a large amount and it's almost not possible to write
> something trivial in 80 lines. But that ~80 lines of code you mention
> above might have been unoriginal.
>

in C, 80 lines of code often is fairly trivial.

although the logic is often fairly dense, the semantic density of C is 
often a bit lower, so one often has to write a lot more code to complete 
the same tasks (or express the same "high-level" operation).

this is also a language where single functions anywhere from 50 to 250 
lines are not uncommon.


this is different from Java, which although substantially more verbose 
than C, and posing some rather awkward restrictions, does at least have 
a merit:
the typical amount of expression per line of code is often a bit higher 
(partly due to the heavy use of library functionality, one could almost 
joke that Java is more a language for invoking library methods than 
actually writing code in, but either way...).

the tradeoff is that Java is not as well suited to writing pure logic 
code (it is fairly hard to get much done without either creating new 
class instances or invoking methods).

OTOH, C tends to more favor plain logic code, given its lack of built-in 
objects, a fairly minimal standard library, ..., which combined with a 
more expressive core language (pointers and a wider variety of built-in 
operations), leads to somewhat different coding practices (which often 
has the consequence of leading to much lower-density code).

"well, I could write a function to look this thing up in a link list, or 
I could just write out the logic for walking the linked list right 
here." so, while someone in another language is off invoking a container 
method or similar, maybe the C programmer is writing a "while()" loop to 
walk through the contents of the linked list or similar (typically 
leading to longer code overall).


however, I suspect it is actually thought, rather than code, which is 
what is expensive. a person can spend very little thought but write out 
several kloc of fairly dull code, or invest maybe many hours into 
writing and thinking over the specifics of only 10 or 20 lines.

one can do far more work, in terms of volume, when they don't really 
need to think, and it all becomes a semi-autonomous process (when the 
mental clockwork starts going).

well, sort of, "getting really into it" and spewing out several kloc 
over the course of a few hours can IME lead to temporary disorientation 
and occasional flash-backs (where, at the moment, one can't really 
remember what all code they wrote, but have flashes of large chunks of 
code in their mind, and normal reality seems almost dream-like for a 
little while until one can mentally recover, which often also restores 
ones' memory of just what all they had proceeded to write).

could this be done with a higher semantic density? maybe not, they would 
either require much more thinking (lower output rate), or end up writing 
less code overall (if the same level of information is expressed in 
fewer lines of code).

(refraining from going into "philosophy of life and coding" issues, 
don't need to go too much on a tangent...).

reading code becomes similar, as one gets fairly used to quickly 
scrolling through largish volumes of code and letting background mental 
processes sort through it, and ones' mind will gloss over most of it, 
boiling it down to its relevant core points.


however, the matter of semantic code density often also reduces the 
ability to directly compare code between languages in terms of 
measurable kloc.

probably 500 kloc of Java code is not the same as 500 kloc of C code 
(either in terms of expression, or in terms of effort or approximate 
time to write it).

so, a lot depends, 80 lines of C code could very well be trivial.
800, or 8000, lines would probably not be so trivial, however, it may 
depend some on the specifics.


>> More details on unix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi
>>
>>    "The University also claimed that similar lines of source code (which
>>     were presented during discovery) did not infringe on USL's copyright
>>     because they had become public domain by the actions of AT&T: AT&T
>>     had promoted UNIX as a standard, licensing it to universities and
>>     allowing UNIX source code to be published in textbooks. The
>>     University submitted briefs from the UC Berkeley students and staff,
>>     explaining how they had audited the code, looking for freely
>>     available copies of the source code and methods. When they could find
>>     none, they said, they removed the code and rewrote it using publicly
>>     known techniques.and so any remaining similarities existed because
>>     AT&T had effectively abandoned the copyright to them."
>>
>> Note (more details in the article) that one can lose copyright status.
>>
>> Also, that code (and presumably also prose) too similar to already
>> public domain code can't be copyrighted. So, BSD didn't have to
>> rewrite all the potentially infringing code if they could make a
>> case for it already being public, or close enough to public
>> domain code.
>>
>> Also interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud
>>
>> -- glen
>>
> Also a very good read:
> http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/originality-requirements.html
>

yep.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12163

On 12-02-18 03:27 AM, Lew wrote:
> On Friday, February 17, 2012 1:50:23 PM UTC-8, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> On 12-02-17 03:51 PM, Lew wrote:
>>> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> Lew wrote:
>>>>> It's too strong a conclusion, "freely" available. A tutorial's code very 
>>>>> reasonably could be licensed only for personal use in service of learning the 
>>>>> material in the tutorial. Presence in a tutorial is not presumptive evidence 
>>>>> that code is licensed freely or in the public domain.
>>>>
>>>>      How would it be licenced without some sort of statement? 
>>>
>>> Exactly so. It wouldn't be.
>>>
>>> Mere presence in a tutorial is not a license.
>>>
>>>> If there is no such statement, then the code is freely available.  
>>>
>>> Wrong. In most jurisdictions, certainly in the U.S., all rights are reserved by 
>>> default. Ergo if there is no statement of license, then the code is completely 
>>> unavailable, outside fair use. 
>> [ SNIP ]
>>
>> What do you do if you can find essentially the same code, except for WS
>> and variable names and such, on dozens of different websites?
>> Acknowledge everyone?
> 
> What?  Huh?  "Essentially the same code, except for" the things that make it 
> different under copyright law? Where's the problem?

Lew, you're not that dense. You know damned well that copyright
infringement doesn't require identical copying. Look up "substantial
similarity".

Some of the points that I somewhat jokingly mentioned in another post,
like changing variable names and adding comments, are actually useless
for material that was accessible on the Internet, because if a
substantial similarity analysis shows that *only* variable names and
whitespace and comments are different, you're still on thin ice.

Where differences like this are more important is for non-public code,
where if access cannot be proved, then any difference has more meaning
in demonstrating that copying probably did not happen.

In copyright infringement cases, including source code, substantial
similarity and access go hand in hand. As evidence for access goes up,
there is less proof required for showing similarity, and vice versa.
Like I mentioned above, for material published on the Internet then
access is provable and obvious, and the bar for showing substantial
similarity is correspondingly less.

The issue certainly is not about "identical" code.

>> I'm not talking about plagiarism either. I'm talking about code snippets
>> that, given a certain situation, really won't deviate from a certain
>> form. Any adequate programmer, confronted with the same problem, would
>> arrive at essentially the same expression. There are numerous examples
>> of this on the Internet or in books or in magazines.
> 
> This is a question of law. What does the law say?

We know what the law says. You do, I do, and most other thinking people
do. You don't need to consult a lawyer for the basics here.

If such a situation were to go legal, let's assume that for each of the
N apparently similar code snippets that we have N known, undisputed
authors. One of them is the plaintiff, and has to prove first the
infringement and then that damages occurred as a result, against one or
more of the other N-1 parties.

The law is also quite clear that the case made by the plaintiff involves
the two factors of substantial similarity and access. In some cases, for
example if the similarity is actually striking, then no proof of access
may be needed.

The point I'm making is about the case where access is provable
(everything is on the Internet) and code snippets *are* substantially
similar, but we are positing that they were in fact independently
produced. The court, IOW, would find for infringement - that is the part
of my point - but in fact there was not any - that is the other part of
my point.

The larger argument I am trying to make here, Lew, is that *Internet*
publishing of source code by all and sundry has created a situation that
copyright law isn't all that good at addressing. For computer code that
does *not* get published - it resides in a company's version control,
and at most the source code might be provided to clients/customers -
then I think existing copyright law is OK.

I also think that there similar problems associated with source code
excerpts in books. Let me give you just one example: in Jason Hunter's
"Java Servlet Programming" books (I am looking at the one that covers
Servlet 2.2, and the 2.3 Draft) he discusses the new-fangled servlet
filters, and provides a LogFilter as an example. This filter prints out
("logs") the before and after times for a request. Even if a Java
programmer has never seen that example, the odds are extremely high that
if they write such a filter that it won't just be substantially similar,
it'll be strikingly similar.

So who wins the copyright battle there? Or do we consider that to be
trivial code? Maybe we do. But there are many situations that result in
lengthier code that will still be substantially similar but
independently developed...time and time and time again.

> AIUI, if you copy the same expression as a copyright work without permission, 
> you have violated the copyright. That's the law. You can play the "how many 
> angels can dance on the head of a pin?" game all you want, but absent the 
> particulars of a given case you're just playing with yourself.
> 
>> Code is not prose or poetry. That's why automatic copyright for source
>> code is a flawed concept. Ideally people should have to explain why they
>> think their code rates copyright. I understand that we shouldn't be
>> flouting the current (broken) system, but we shouldn't be passively
>> accepting it either.
>>
>> I guarantee that each and every one of us writes code routinely,
>> independently and without copy & paste and without reference to others'
>> material, that could be attacked on the basis of copyright, simply
>> because someone published something basic. Are you cool with that?
> 
> You could write a Harry Potter novel without seeing the original work, too. 
> J.K. Rowling could then sue you, as her publishers have done, and you would 
> lose. Are you cool with that?

Different situation. Source code is not the same thing as prose and
poetry, not in real life it's not. In law it is, but law simply reflects
what society wants, and what certain segments of society want; law is
loosely correlated with common sense at times.

> Copyright exists to protect the expression of a work. It has value. It '
> prevents others from profiting from the copyright holder's work without 
> sharing the profit, or at least getting permission. Yes, I'm cool with that.
> 
> You should be, too.
> 
Lew, buddy, if you write code that is original, non-trivial and that I
cannot write myself given my current abilities and domain knowledge, and
that after due diligence (namely research in other documentation) I see
that it is also non-trivial to programmers who are well-versed in the
problem domain, I would be overjoyed to credit you with the work.

AHS
-- 
...wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their
own government...
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1789

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12165

Arved Sandstrom wrote:
[snip]
> Lew, buddy, if you write code that is original, non-trivial and that I
> cannot write myself given my current abilities and domain knowledge, and
> that after due diligence (namely research in other documentation) I see
> that it is also non-trivial to programmers who are well-versed in the
> problem domain, I would be overjoyed to credit you with the work.

Your followup draws the necessary distinctions. Your points are 
well taken.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12167

Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:

(snip)
> Lew, you're not that dense. You know damned well that copyright
> infringement doesn't require identical copying. Look up "substantial
> similarity".

(snip)
> We know what the law says. You do, I do, and most other thinking people
> do. You don't need to consult a lawyer for the basics here.

> If such a situation were to go legal, let's assume that for each of the
> N apparently similar code snippets that we have N known, undisputed
> authors. One of them is the plaintiff, and has to prove first the
> infringement and then that damages occurred as a result, against one or
> more of the other N-1 parties.

Sounds amazingly like the SCO vs. (N-1 parties) regarding unix code
copyright. (See my previous post or:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi .)

(snip of more good points in the discussion)

-- glen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12177

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:27:26 -0800 (PST), Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com>
wrote:

[snip]

>You could write a Harry Potter novel without seeing the original work, too. 
>J.K. Rowling could then sue you, as her publishers have done, and you would 
>lose. Are you cool with that?

     She could sue, and you could win.  Copyright protects against
copying.  Independently coming up with something is not a copyright
violation.  Granted that, in this case, it would be difficult to show
the independence, but in principle, it is possible.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web