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 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#12114

Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> Bit of an overheated reaction to what I thought were reasonable questions.

Granted, but a real-life risk when one is asking about the cliff edge of 
copyright law. Have you read about copyright cases that seemed ludicrous by 
common sense but went the plaintiff's way? Of course, because that is common.

Do I think the OP is trying to game the system in an unethical way? No, not 
really, but suppose he did run afoul of a copyright claim. We here, us legal 
beagles, tell him, "Sure, copy what you need." Then he loses, in part because 
this very thread is shown to the court as an example that he intended to steal 
copyright material all along. It's happened.

So is my reaction overheated, or instructive of what some actual copyright 
holders might do?

> I'm the last person to advocate filching code that should be attributed
> (or paid for or both). I make my living writing code for money, and I'd
> be annoyed if someone copied it and passed it off as theirs.
> 
> *If* my code was non-obvious, that is. Or incorporated significant
> domain knowledge. In other words, if it actually merited some legal
> protections, according to commonsense.
> 
> There is a lot of code out there that ought to be under copyright
> according to the rules, but should not be copyrighted according to
> commonsense. There are myriads of code snippets that express concept
> implementations, in every programming language, that any well-versed
> person would code more or less in the same fashion, with only very
> trivial tweaks. Tutorials, for example, are positively loaded with this
> kind of code. Should any of it qualify for copyright? Why should it? Why
> should code like that qualify when 500 or 5000 or 50000 other coders
> have already independently written basically the same thing?
> 
> Code is not like prose or poetry. It's possible to provide a bunch of
> programmers with the same detailed design of a proposed solution, and
> assuming a good level of skill, it won't be unusual to see many highly
> similar elements in the independent implementations. So why should any
> of that be copyrighted?
> 
> Who amongst us hasn't seen code snippets on the Web that didn't look
> remarkably like something we had written ourselves?

The defense against copyright infringement claims is that very plethora of 
exemplars. You simply aver that you copied the other 4000 examples, and not 
the plaintiff's. 

As for "who amongst us?" I hope those snippets weren't from the Daily WTF, but 
for all too many programmers that's where their code really belongs. This group 
is relatively elite, but we're only going to think quality code looks familiar 
if we are in the habit ourselves of writing quality code.

> Anyway, there are much better reasons not to worry about copyright, even
> in the frequent cases when it legally exists but is retarded. It's much
> better - for several reasons - not to copy and paste. One, you have no

I agree with a caveat - it's bad to thoughtlessly copy and paste. A thoughtful 
copy, which is actually copy-paste-edit (CPE), is a very useful technique. CPE 
is a valid form of code reuse.

> idea if the code is defective or not if you just copy it. If it's so

[emphasis on "just"]

> trivial that you can immediately tell by visual inspection that it's OK,
> as in a "public static void main Hello World" example (which the lawyers
> would argue is under copyright), then you should just type it in yourself.

Whatever. Typing or copying, who cares as long as the end result is correct?
But mindful copying is probably a word at a time, not a snippet at a time, so 
through the oppositional style I agree with your point. I just don't want 
people to fear the clipboard. What to fear is carelessness.

> Two, from a learning standpoint, and a downroad maintenance standpoint,
> you shouldn't copy and paste non-trivial code because you're sacrificing
> a learning opportunity. Presumably you went hunting for the code snippet
> because you didn't know how to do it yourself. Learn from the code
> snippet, and work through it. Build up your own implementation, *guided*
> by the example. Quite frankly, if you end up with code that you typed
> yourself, and you thoroughly understand it, and could now independently
> write it, you can ethically feel good about your efforts. My sincere
> opinion.

As Arne pointed out in some other thread, the goals vary between coding for 
learning and coding for work. You should never copy code you don't fully grok, 
I agree there, but it's not the copy-and-paste one should eschew, rather the 
failure to grok. To fix that, the retype route is superior when coding for 
learning. Once you've learned, the clipboard is a tool like any other when 
coding for work.

-- 
Lew

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

#12081

Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1848237.679.1329425962537.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbgq3: 

> 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! 
> 
I'm sorry if it came off that way. I'm actually trying NOT to break any 
laws or rules, which is why I'm trying to find out when it's okay to 
borrow something and when it is not.

> 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?
> 

I have no intention of treating what I read here as solid gold top-shelp 
legal advice. I know I have to pay for that and, even then, there are no 
guarantees. All a laywer is ever really going to do is tell me if a given 
act has been prosecuted in the relevant jurisdiction and whether the 
court's decision has been upheld by higher courts or overturned. 

But my theory is that people who are writing code for a living probably 
all have at least a ballpark sense of what is common practice - and 
therefore _probably_ legal - and that's what I'm trying to find out.  

-- 
Novice

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

#12084

On 2/16/2012 6:36 PM, Novice wrote:
> Lew<lewbloch@gmail.com>  wrote in
> news:1848237.679.1329425962537.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbgq3:
>> 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?
>>
>
> I have no intention of treating what I read here as solid gold top-shelp
> legal advice. I know I have to pay for that and, even then, there are no
> guarantees. All a laywer is ever really going to do is tell me if a given
> act has been prosecuted in the relevant jurisdiction and whether the
> court's decision has been upheld by higher courts or overturned.
>
> But my theory is that people who are writing code for a living probably
> all have at least a ballpark sense of what is common practice - and
> therefore _probably_ legal - and that's what I'm trying to find out.

We can certainly tell you about common practice.

How much common practice follow the law is another
question.

My guess is that it depends on the number of cases
that went to court.

If there are hundreds of cases everybody know how
the verdicts go.

With zero cases the correlation between common practice
in the IT world and the law may be very small.

I have never heard about a case related to this
question.

Arne

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

#12072

On 2/16/2012 12:50 PM, Novice wrote:
> I'm curious to know the legalities involved in "borrowing" code without
> paying for it.
>

I am by no means a legal expert, nor am I functioning as a valid legal 
council, but I am writing of these matters as I understand them.


> 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?
>

here is the issue:
it is not about who is cited as the author, this is related to academic 
notions of "plagiarism", but is not all that relevant as far as code is 
concerned;
you don't generally "obtain" a license to use someones' code, they 
assign a license to said code (describing the particular terms under 
which it can be used), and everyone else is expected to follow these 
terms (under the power of law).

it is worth looking for the terms, as many people will just put the code 
under some or another FOSS license (GPL, BSD, MIT, ...), in which case 
one can use it freely under these terms.


one can often "license" something (as in, pay them for the legal right 
to make use of it), but this is a different matter (not directly related 
to copyright law per-se, but may be regarded as a use-case for copyright 
law).


> 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, it is wishful thinking (partly).

typically, the website will list somewhere what sort of terms of use the 
code is under.
as far as the law is concerned, if no terms of conditions are found, one 
either has to ask permission, or has no implicit rights to use the code.

in practice, it probably doesn't matter too much, since:
if they put it up on a website, they probably don't really care whether 
or not anyone uses it (they probably intend that someone does make use 
of it);
if the fragment is fairly small, the courts probably aren't really going 
to bother to care either.


it is also not like you are going, taking some random piece of 
commercial software, and ripping off bits of its source code. this would 
be far less certain, and people are far more likely to try to sue out of 
general principle.


similarly, small fragments may also fall under the terms of "fair use", 
which isn't technically the same as "public domain", but rather means 
that the law has decided not to bother.

this, however, does lead to some controversy, with different people 
having differing opinions as to what constitutes fair use.


some people believe in notions of "strict copyright enforcement" which 
implicitly denies the notion of fair use, but AFAIK what cases have been 
raised on these grounds have often been dismissed as "frivolous" in the 
courts.

most commonly, this has been in relation to people using short 
audio-clips from songs in composing longer songs, or in using parts of 
images in constructing other artwork or in TV shows, like "our logo can 
be made out in this particular shot of this particular episode of this 
particular show, we want the network to pay us $100M" (then one can see 
just how long until the case gets dismissed). (or, in an old, terrible, 
"futuristic" SciFi movie where one could clearly see a computer with a 
Windows 9x desktop in one of the shots, it is nice to know that the 
distant future uses CRT monitors and runs Windows 98, never-mind that 
"Encom OS" was apparently actually Ubuntu, ...).


the notion of strict-enforcement remains more common with code, but 
probably only assuming anyone actually cares, and if it is put up on a 
website for public use, it is probably not all that likely that anyone 
is going to care.

"tables of numbers or other information" are generally safe.


> 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.
>

yes.
but, as noted, they may either allow them to be used (maybe stated 
explicitly somewhere), or the use may fall under fair-use.


> 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?
>

it, again, depends.

there is a rule of something like 20% modification means copyright no 
longer applies, but what exactly this means for code is less clear.

I would guess that code which differs only in that the variable names 
are changed and that 20% of the characters are different would not apply.

however, if the code has been "naturally" altered almost beyond all 
recognition, I would guess it is probably safe.


> 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.
>

simplest answer is to see if one can find a license anywhere, and then 
act under the terms of the license.

effectively, this prevents them from taking any action, as well (as I 
understand it) any other parties they may have potentially "stolen" from 
(legally, it is their fault in this case).


however, if it is something like a warez site, then the above likely 
doesn't hold (they can't offer any sort of legal protection as they are, 
by definition, illegal).

it is much like, people are free to buy and sell stuff, but they may 
still be legally accountable for knowingly buying and selling stolen 
property (this is also why places like pawn shops will turn away things 
that they suspect are stolen).


granted, there are a lot of grey areas...

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

#12085

BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> wrote in news:jhjves$rds$1@news.albasani.net:

> On 2/16/2012 12:50 PM, Novice wrote:
>> I'm curious to know the legalities involved in "borrowing" code
>> without paying for it.
>>
> 
> I am by no means a legal expert, nor am I functioning as a valid legal
> council, but I am writing of these matters as I understand them.
> 
> 
>> 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?
>>
> 
> here is the issue:
> it is not about who is cited as the author, this is related to
> academic notions of "plagiarism", but is not all that relevant as far
> as code is concerned;
> you don't generally "obtain" a license to use someones' code, they 
> assign a license to said code (describing the particular terms under 
> which it can be used), and everyone else is expected to follow these 
> terms (under the power of law).
> 
> it is worth looking for the terms, as many people will just put the
> code under some or another FOSS license (GPL, BSD, MIT, ...), in which
> case one can use it freely under these terms.
> 
> 
> one can often "license" something (as in, pay them for the legal right
> to make use of it), but this is a different matter (not directly
> related to copyright law per-se, but may be regarded as a use-case for
> copyright law).
> 
> 
>> 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, it is wishful thinking (partly).
> 
> typically, the website will list somewhere what sort of terms of use
> the code is under.
> as far as the law is concerned, if no terms of conditions are found,
> one either has to ask permission, or has no implicit rights to use the
> code. 
> 
> in practice, it probably doesn't matter too much, since:
> if they put it up on a website, they probably don't really care
> whether or not anyone uses it (they probably intend that someone does
> make use of it);

Exactly! This is why it seemed to me that it might be okay to "borrow" 
such examples. It seemed self-evident that someone writing a tutorial 
meant for it to be used in developing code. 

I wasn't contemplating stealing the full source code for Windows here, 
just using a small class or two that someone had figured out and 
displayed publicly.

> if the fragment is fairly small, the courts probably aren't really
> going to bother to care either.
> 
> 
> it is also not like you are going, taking some random piece of 
> commercial software, and ripping off bits of its source code. this
> would be far less certain, and people are far more likely to try to
> sue out of general principle.
> 
> 
> similarly, small fragments may also fall under the terms of "fair
> use", which isn't technically the same as "public domain", but rather
> means that the law has decided not to bother.
> 
> this, however, does lead to some controversy, with different people 
> having differing opinions as to what constitutes fair use.
> 
> 
> some people believe in notions of "strict copyright enforcement" which
> implicitly denies the notion of fair use, but AFAIK what cases have
> been raised on these grounds have often been dismissed as "frivolous"
> in the courts.
> 
> most commonly, this has been in relation to people using short 
> audio-clips from songs in composing longer songs, or in using parts of
> images in constructing other artwork or in TV shows, like "our logo
> can be made out in this particular shot of this particular episode of
> this particular show, we want the network to pay us $100M" (then one
> can see just how long until the case gets dismissed). (or, in an old,
> terrible, "futuristic" SciFi movie where one could clearly see a
> computer with a Windows 9x desktop in one of the shots, it is nice to
> know that the distant future uses CRT monitors and runs Windows 98,
> never-mind that "Encom OS" was apparently actually Ubuntu, ...).
> 
> 
> the notion of strict-enforcement remains more common with code, but 
> probably only assuming anyone actually cares, and if it is put up on a
> website for public use, it is probably not all that likely that anyone
> is going to care.
> 
Exactly. That's why I'm asking about the usability of the code I see in 
those public places.

> "tables of numbers or other information" are generally safe.
> 
> 
>> 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.
>>
> 
> yes.
> but, as noted, they may either allow them to be used (maybe stated 
> explicitly somewhere), or the use may fall under fair-use.
> 
> 
>> 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? 
>>
> 
> it, again, depends.
> 
> there is a rule of something like 20% modification means copyright no 
> longer applies, but what exactly this means for code is less clear.
> 
> I would guess that code which differs only in that the variable names 
> are changed and that 20% of the characters are different would not
> apply. 
> 
> however, if the code has been "naturally" altered almost beyond all 
> recognition, I would guess it is probably safe.
> 
> 
>> 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.
>>
> 
> simplest answer is to see if one can find a license anywhere, and then
> act under the terms of the license.
> 
Agreed. I will look for the licence terms, if any, for this code. Or 
maybe I'll just study the heck out of it, figure out how it works, and 
then write my own version of it and hope that it is different enough that 
it doesn't upset the person who I'm imitating.

> effectively, this prevents them from taking any action, as well (as I 
> understand it) any other parties they may have potentially "stolen"
> from (legally, it is their fault in this case).
> 
> 
> however, if it is something like a warez site, then the above likely 
> doesn't hold (they can't offer any sort of legal protection as they
> are, by definition, illegal).
> 
> it is much like, people are free to buy and sell stuff, but they may 
> still be legally accountable for knowingly buying and selling stolen 
> property (this is also why places like pawn shops will turn away
> things that they suspect are stolen).
> 
> 
> granted, there are a lot of grey areas...

Thanks for your coments on this subject.

-- 
Novice

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

#12115

Novice wrote:
> Exactly! This is why it seemed to me that it might be okay to "borrow" 
> such examples. It seemed self-evident that someone writing a tutorial 
> meant for it to be used in developing code. 

On the contrary, it is obvious that that is not the intention. A tutorial by 
definition is meant for use in learning how to develop code. It is almost 
certainly not meant for use in developing code.

> I wasn't contemplating stealing the full source code for Windows here, 
> just using a small class or two that someone had figured out and 
> displayed publicly.

Public display does not confer right to use!

Besides, Arved's advice really, really applies here. So what if you *can* copy 
some code into yours? The question you should ask yourself is if you *should*.

The term for copying code snippets from outside sources (like tutorials on the 
Web) into your code is "cargo-cult programming".

I have seen many tragically laughable results in real-life projects from this 
style of coding.

Now, CPE (copy-paste-edit) is a different matter, properly employed.

-- 
Lew

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

#12125

Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> wrote in
news:11812328.4.1329472631072.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbhp10: 

> Novice wrote:
>> Exactly! This is why it seemed to me that it might be okay to
>> "borrow" such examples. It seemed self-evident that someone writing a
>> tutorial meant for it to be used in developing code. 
> 
> On the contrary, it is obvious that that is not the intention. A
> tutorial by definition is meant for use in learning how to develop
> code. It is almost certainly not meant for use in developing code.
> 
>> I wasn't contemplating stealing the full source code for Windows
>> here, just using a small class or two that someone had figured out
>> and displayed publicly.
> 
> Public display does not confer right to use!
> 
In a legal sense, sure. Still,  if someone posts a recipe for chili on a 
cooking page, it seems to me the intent is to offer it to the world as in 
"Here's how I make a great chili in case you want to do the same." A code 
example seems like the same thing to me. 

I suppose a code example could just be someone showing off, as in "I 
wrote this clever bit of code so I'm putting this code on a public web 
page so that you can see how clever I am. But don't you dare try to use 
it because if I find out you did, I'll send my lawyers after you and make 
a truckload of money!" But that doesn't all that likely to me. 

> Besides, Arved's advice really, really applies here. So what if you
> *can* copy some code into yours? The question you should ask yourself
> is if you *should*. 
> 
> The term for copying code snippets from outside sources (like
> tutorials on the Web) into your code is "cargo-cult programming".
> 
> I have seen many tragically laughable results in real-life projects
> from this style of coding.
> 
> Now, CPE (copy-paste-edit) is a different matter, properly employed.
> 

I totally agree with that. If you don't know how it works, you can't fix 
it if it doesn't work. You also don't know if it is going to introduce 
unexpected side-effects to your code or perform horribly because the 
developer of the code was only trying to show a way to do something, not 
necessarily the most efficient way. Etc. etc.

For what it's worth, I've contacted the author of the classes I've seen 
and received his encouragement to use the classes, even for commercial 
projects, but to please credit him in the source code. He has not asked 
for any money whatsoever. I was not specific about which classes I wanted 
and referred only to a significant number of examples that he has 
published online so his permission seems to be a carte blanche 
authorization to use anything at that website. 

Also, since I don't actually LIKE using borrowed code - I really would 
rather write my own - I am studying his code and developing my own 
solution that will hopefully use his concept but do it in my own way.

In a moment of weakness, I was tempted to just borrow the code (with 
attribution) and move on to other tasks due to time pressure so I asked 
my question to try to determine the consequences of doing so.

-- 
Novice

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

#12129

Novice <novice@example..com> wrote:

(snip, someone wrote)

>> Public display does not confer right to use!
 
> In a legal sense, sure. Still,  if someone posts a recipe for chili on a 
> cooking page, it seems to me the intent is to offer it to the world as in 
> "Here's how I make a great chili in case you want to do the same." A code 
> example seems like the same thing to me. 

You might even be able to go into the canned chili business
with the recipe, but publishing it in a cookbook is a different
question.

But the usual thing with both recipes is to modify them, as
they say (in the recipe) to taste. 

There is some explanation of this in "Numerical Recipes", but 
maybe not quite good enough. Many of the programs are adapted
from others generally known, yet different enough not to
violate a previous copyright. (Or so the authors hope.)

Despite the name, it is my understanding that it is best
to use the programs as test programs for implementing the
given algorithms. 

You might have a math book with an explanation of an algorithm,
but have a hard time visualizing it. With a sample program, you
can try out a few cases, see how they work, and then write your
own implementation. 

> I suppose a code example could just be someone showing off, as in "I 
> wrote this clever bit of code so I'm putting this code on a public web 
> page so that you can see how clever I am. But don't you dare try to use 
> it because if I find out you did, I'll send my lawyers after you and 
> make a truckload of money!" But that doesn't all that likely to me. 

If it is only a few lines long, there likely aren't that many
different ways to do it. As it gets longer, there is more
possibility for variation.

In the Apple II days, there were claims that the only possible
implementation of the ROMs was the one that Apple used. The code
was so tight, using as many space-saving tricks as one could
think of, and much had to fit in a certain space, that it
might have been close to true. When you are not space or time
constrained, it is much easier to write an alternate implementation
of an algorithm, and avoid copyright problems. (Though you can
still run into patent problems.)

>> Besides, Arved's advice really, really applies here. So what 
>> if you *can* copy some code into yours? The question you 
>> should ask yourself is if you *should*. 
 
(snip)
> I totally agree with that. If you don't know how it works, you can't fix 
> it if it doesn't work. You also don't know if it is going to introduce 
> unexpected side-effects to your code or perform horribly because the 
> developer of the code was only trying to show a way to do something, 
> not necessarily the most efficient way. Etc. etc.

And if you do know how it works, it usually isn't so hard to change
it enough to avoid copyright problems.

If I remember, there were some interesting examples in one
of the Unix suits. There are a few unix derivatives, such
as FreeBSD and NetBSD that are supposed to be reimplementations.

Someone might find something like the old C favorite:

   while(*s++ = *t**) ;

in both copyright version and a derived version, and claim it
as infringement. (You might look it up for more accurate
details.) But that is so common in C programming that it
doesn't make much sense to claim copyright for it.

There are also some fun cases in literary fiction, where
one claims that another copied their story too closely.
(I believe some related to Harry Potter, where any story 
with a magical boy could be considered to be infringed.)

-- glen

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

#12131 — [OT] Harry Potter copyright claims (Was: "Borrowing" code)

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> There are also some fun cases in literary fiction, where
> one claims that another copied their story too closely.
> (I believe some related to Harry Potter, where any story 
> with a magical boy could be considered to be infringed.)

Uh, how about a book where a magical boy named "Larry Potter" goes into a 
magical world to fight evil magicians? Or another work where non-magical humans 
are called "muggles"? These were the works that claimed infringement, not just 
random stories about magical boys.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_disputes_over_the_Harry_Potter_series>

I'm not saying the claims were valid (they weren't), but that they were more 
finely tuned than simply "any story with a magical boy".

-- 
Lew
Facts are a wonderful thing, despite that we love to ignore them.

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

#12134 — Re: [OT] Harry Potter copyright claims (Was: "Borrowing" code)

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:00:09 -0800 (PST), Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com>
wrote:

>glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>> There are also some fun cases in literary fiction, where
>> one claims that another copied their story too closely.
>> (I believe some related to Harry Potter, where any story 
>> with a magical boy could be considered to be infringed.)
>
>Uh, how about a book where a magical boy named "Larry Potter" goes into a 
>magical world to fight evil magicians? Or another work where non-magical humans 
>are called "muggles"? These were the works that claimed infringement, not just 
>random stories about magical boys.
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_disputes_over_the_Harry_Potter_series>
>
>I'm not saying the claims were valid (they weren't), but that they were more 
>finely tuned than simply "any story with a magical boy".

     There are coincidences, too.  Dragon Magazine (former mag by TSR
for roleplaying games) had an article wherein it was stated that two
people had once submitted ideas that were extremely close.

     With enough volume, these coincidences can happen.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#12184

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:45:27 +0000 (UTC), glen herrmannsfeldt
<gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

[-snip]

>Someone might find something like the old C favorite:
>
>   while(*s++ = *t**) ;

while (*s++ = *t++);

;-)

>There are also some fun cases in literary fiction, where
>one claims that another copied their story too closely.
>(I believe some related to Harry Potter, where any story 
>with a magical boy could be considered to be infringed.)

JK Rowling was not the first to write about a boy wizard, nor even a
wizard school.
-- 
(\__/)  M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

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

#12132

Novice wrote:
> Lew wrote
> > Novice wrote:
> >> Exactly! This is why it seemed to me that it might be okay to
> >> "borrow" such examples. It seemed self-evident that someone writing a
> >> tutorial meant for it to be used in developing code. 
> > 
> > On the contrary, it is obvious that that is not the intention. A
> > tutorial by definition is meant for use in learning how to develop
> > code. It is almost certainly not meant for use in developing code.
> > 
> >> I wasn't contemplating stealing the full source code for Windows
> >> here, just using a small class or two that someone had figured out
> >> and displayed publicly.
> > 
> > Public display does not confer right to use!
> > 
> In a legal sense, sure. Still,  if someone posts a recipe for chili on a 
> cooking page, it seems to me the intent is to offer it to the world as in 
> "Here's how I make a great chili in case you want to do the same." A code 
> example seems like the same thing to me. 

You still don't get it, do you?  The "legal sense" is what you asked about!

The "legal sense" is also what will bite you in the ass if you are not 
responsible for it.

Why have you suddenly in mid-thread lost interest in the "legal sense"?

Making chili is not copyright infringement. The printed form of the recipe is 
what is copyright, not the recipe itself. The situation is entirely non-
analogous.

The code example is NOT the same. Get over "it seems to me" and deal with 
reality. If you are such the expert, why did you ask the question in the first 
place?

> I suppose a code example could just be someone showing off, as in "I 
> wrote this clever bit of code so I'm putting this code on a public web 
> page so that you can see how clever I am. But don't you dare try to use 
> it because if I find out you did, I'll send my lawyers after you and make 
> a truckload of money!" But that doesn't all that likely to me. 

Another "seems to me". It might not seem like standing on train tracks is 
dangerous, but do step off before the train arrives anyway.

The question you asked, and we answered, is if taking code from a tutorial 
or other sources constitutes copyright infringement. We have told you that yes, 
in many cases it is. Now you attempt to deny this fact (fact!) on the basis 
of "it seems to you" that it shouldn't infringe. Disregard the law at your own 
peril, dude.

> > Besides, Arved's advice really, really applies here. So what if you
> > *can* copy some code into yours? The question you should ask yourself
> > is if you *should*. 

A point you obstinately refuse to acknowledge.

> > The term for copying code snippets from outside sources (like
> > tutorials on the Web) into your code is "cargo-cult programming".
> > 
> > I have seen many tragically laughable results in real-life projects
> > from this style of coding.
> > 
> > Now, CPE (copy-paste-edit) is a different matter, properly employed.
> > 
> 
> I totally agree with that. If you don't know how it works, you can't fix 
> it if it doesn't work. You also don't know if it is going to introduce 
> unexpected side-effects to your code or perform horribly because the 
> developer of the code was only trying to show a way to do something, not 
> necessarily the most efficient way. Etc. etc.
> 
> For what it's worth, I've contacted the author of the classes I've seen 
> and received his encouragement to use the classes, even for commercial 
> projects, but to please credit him in the source code. He has not asked 
> for any money whatsoever. I was not specific about which classes I wanted 
> and referred only to a significant number of examples that he has 
> published online so his permission seems to be a carte blanche 
> authorization to use anything at that website. 

Get it in writing.

> Also, since I don't actually LIKE using borrowed code - I really would 
> rather write my own - I am studying his code and developing my own 
> solution that will hopefully use his concept but do it in my own way.

Now THAT, as we've said upthread a few times, *is* the purpose of tutorials.

> In a moment of weakness, I was tempted to just borrow the code (with 
> attribution) and move on to other tasks due to time pressure so I asked 
> my question to try to determine the consequences of doing so.

And despite many good answers to that question, you take issue with the truth.

In matters of law, "it seems to me that should be different" will not excuse 
you from liability. 

We've given you the advice. The consequences of following it or not are on you.

-- 
Lew

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

#12154

On 2012-02-17, Novice <novice@example> wrote:
> Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:11812328.4.1329472631072.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbhp10: 
>
>> Public display does not confer right to use!
>> 
> In a legal sense, sure.

In a legal sense, you cannot use anyone else's code ever, under any
circumstances, except by their explicit permission. There are
exceptions to this but unless you are a lawyer specializing in
copyright law, or have retained the services of one such, then you do
not understand what they are and so cannot reliably make use of them.

So if the legal sense is what actually matters to you the answer is:
no you cannot, consult a lawyer.

If, on the other hand, the legal sense does not matter to you but the
I want to do what I want sense matters more then you can presumably do
whatever you want. The law may come around and kick you in the balls
at some point of course, but them's the breaks.

I am not a lawyer so apply salt as necessary.

Cheers,

Bent D.
-- 
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
                                    powered by emacs

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

#12074

On 02/16/2012 02:50 PM, Novice 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,
> is just one of many such web sites on the Internet, as is the Java
> Tutorial at the Oracle website.
>
The java2s site doesn't seem to have a TOS that I could find.
Most of the pages are marked with an "All rights reserved" copyright notice.
There is a "Contact us" link.
If you look at the bottom of the Java Tutorial "reallybigindex" page
there are links to the TOS and Code Sample License.

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

#12083

On 2/16/2012 2:50 PM, Novice 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,
> 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.

Ideally the code should already have been assigned a license and then
if you comply with that license then you are good.

With no license you have no right to use the cod.

I would agree that code posted at web sites, usenet groups
with the obvious intent to provide help for other users
has an implicit permissive license.

But how that would fly with the lawyers in court
that I do not know.

Arne

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

#12093

On 2/16/12 3:37 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 2/16/2012 2:50 PM, Novice 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,
>> 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.
>
> Ideally the code should already have been assigned a license and then
> if you comply with that license then you are good.
>
> With no license you have no right to use the cod.
>
> I would agree that code posted at web sites, usenet groups
> with the obvious intent to provide help for other users
> has an implicit permissive license.
>
> But how that would fly with the lawyers in court
> that I do not know.
Actually, I somehow doubt that. First, code posted in public forums 
isn't always owned by the person posting. Second, it is quite possible 
that the code is intended to demonstrate a concept or technique, but 
author of the code did not intend for the code to be copied verbatim.

IANAL, but from my experience with copyright, it seems that nothing 
implicit matters, only what is made explicit. *except* fair-use.

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

#12092

On 2/16/2012 2:50 PM, Novice 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,
> is just one of many such web sites on the Internet, as is the Java
> Tutorial at the Oracle website.

     Since that site says

	Copyright 2009 - 12 Demo Source and Support.
	All rights reserved.

... I think you'd better check with them first.

-- 
Eric Sosman
esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid

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

#12096

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:50:51 +0000 (UTC), Novice <novice@example..com>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

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

I think anything that looks like teaching examples is fair game for
incorporation. Otherwise look for their policy.  In general POSTED
code is fair game. Downloaded code is likely to have restrictions.

Everything on my site, including docs, is for non-military use only.
-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
One of the most useful comments you can put in a program is 
"If you change this, remember to change ?XXX? too".
 

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

#12098

On 2/16/2012 9:01 PM, Roedy Green wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:50:51 +0000 (UTC), Novice<novice@example..com>
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>> I'm curious to know the legalities involved in "borrowing" code without
>> paying for it.
>
> I think anything that looks like teaching examples is fair game for
> incorporation. Otherwise look for their policy.  In general POSTED
> code is fair game. Downloaded code is likely to have restrictions.

I would expect the difference between inline and download code to
be more about number of files and size than about permission.

> Everything on my site, including docs, is for non-military use only.

So your site is not fair game for incorporation.

Arne

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

#12106

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:01:14 -0800, Roedy Green
<see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:50:51 +0000 (UTC), Novice <novice@example..com>
>wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>>I'm curious to know the legalities involved in "borrowing" code without 
>>paying for it.
>
>I think anything that looks like teaching examples is fair game for
>incorporation. Otherwise look for their policy.  In general POSTED
>code is fair game. Downloaded code is likely to have restrictions.
>
>Everything on my site, including docs, is for non-military use only.

     What if I write an app using some of your code, and someone buys
it and puts it to military use?

     As I recall from an article when I was still living in Vancouver
(in "The Computer Paper", I think), you had trouble enforcing your
limitation.  How did that end up going?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web