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

#12179

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

If you wrote a _Harry Potter novel_, i.e. a novel set in the Harry
Potter universe, it would count as a derivitative work and be in
violation of Rowling's copyright, even if most of the work was
original. I don't think that aspect of copyright is relevant for
source code though, but INAL.

-- 
Leif Roar Moldskred

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

#12192

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:08:08 -0600, Leif Roar Moldskred
<leifm@dimnakorr.com> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:27:26 -0800 (PST), Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com>
> 
>>>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.
>
>If you wrote a _Harry Potter novel_, i.e. a novel set in the Harry
>Potter universe, it would count as a derivitative work and be in
>violation of Rowling's copyright, even if most of the work was
>original. I don't think that aspect of copyright is relevant for
>source code though, but INAL.

     But that is not what is under discussion.  Note the "...without
seeing the original work...".  It is not copyright violation then.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#12182

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:46:12 -0800, Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net>
wrote:

>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.

It doesn't just protect in copying actual works but also ideas.  There
was a case where a photographer took a similar photo to another and
lost the case.
-- 
(\__/)  M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

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

#12183

Mark wrote:
> It [copyright] doesn't just protect in copying actual works but also ideas.  There
> was a case where a photographer took a similar photo to another and
> lost the case.

That's still protection of expression, not of ideas. It is the photographs 
that were similar enough to constitute violation, not the ideas.

-- 
Lew
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Friz.jpg

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

#12191

On 2/20/2012 2:45 AM, Lew wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>> It [copyright] doesn't just protect in copying actual works but also
>> ideas. There
>> was a case where a photographer took a similar photo to another and
>> lost the case.
>
> That's still protection of expression, not of ideas. It is the
> photographs that were similar enough to constitute violation, not the
> ideas.
>

yeah.

photographer A takes picture of brick wall;
photographer B rips off picture of brick wall.

vs, if photographer B took a similar picture of another brick wall.
"but, you see, these bricks are different..."

could be extended to pictures of concrete and metal panels and so on as 
well.

it makes sense to make things different enough that they can be more 
easily told apart (one picture of carved stone brick vs another of 
cinder-block, ...), or if they are of the same material, at least some 
sort of apparent visual difference.

or such...

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

#12185

Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
 
> It doesn't just protect in copying actual works but also ideas.  There
> was a case where a photographer took a similar photo to another and
> lost the case.


Well, no, it only protects _expressions_ of ideas. If someone tells
about this great idea he has for a photograph and you go and make a
photograph based on that idea, that's not copyright infringement.

It does get a little fuzzy around the edges, particularly with fiction
(where a named character might be thought of as an expression), but in
general the above holds.

-- 
Leif Roar Moldskred

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

#12143

On 2/17/2012 2:29 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> 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.

That is not how copyright law works.

Default is no license.

Arne

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

#12144

On 2/17/2012 4:00 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> That is not how copyright law works.
>
> Default is no license.

Where by "no license" the correct interpretation is "it is illegal for 
you to reuse the code." The only rights that copyright law gives you by 
default is those covered by fair use (which are inviolable, 
incidentally); any other right is not presumed to be present unless 
explicitly mentioned.

Caveat: this is copyright law as it exists in the US since 1976. 
However, to my knowledge, similar interpretations are valid for most 
jurisdictions.

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not 
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

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

#12146

On 2/17/2012 5:08 PM, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
> On 2/17/2012 4:00 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> That is not how copyright law works.
>>
>> Default is no license.
>
> Where by "no license" the correct interpretation is "it is illegal for
> you to reuse the code." The only rights that copyright law gives you by
> default is those covered by fair use (which are inviolable,
> incidentally); any other right is not presumed to be present unless
> explicitly mentioned.
>
> Caveat: this is copyright law as it exists in the US since 1976.
> However, to my knowledge, similar interpretations are valid for most
> jurisdictions.

Yep.

Bern convention standardized copyright rules a lot.

But explicit does not specify whether it is written in
paper, written on a web page, given verbally or given by
clicking submit.

Arne

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

#12151

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:29:46 -0800, Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net>
wrote:

>     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.

Lew is correct.  Under the Bern convention - which is followed (at
least theoretically) by all WIPO countries - the author of any work
retains an implicit copyright which requires no statement or mark.

Code posted in an online tutorial or other web article ordinarily is
NOT public domain - it belongs to the author and some rights may
belong to the owner of the site, the same as with a print article.
Unless the code carries a license or the text contains a statement by
the author explicitly granting permission to use the code, it legally
can be used for *only* for education under the Fair Use provision of
Copyright law.  It should *not* be used for any other purpose without
obtaining permission.


However, code posted to a public discussion forum *is* presumed to
have been deliberately put into the public domain unless there is a
license or statement by the author which indicates otherwise.  

The danger here is that the code may have been copied illegally from
somewhere else.  Ignoranance of the origin of the code *might* shield
you from paying so-called "deliberate" damages in a copyright lawsuit
(meaning you *knew* it was a copyright violation but did it anyway),
but it won't protect you from the basic use violation.

Some people remember to say that the posted code is their own and that
it is free to use, but many do not.


The bottom line is that you should always assume that you CAN'T use
any code that you may come across unless it carries a free use
license.  For any other case, you should contact the author and obtain
permission to use it.

IANAL
George

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

#12156

On 12-02-17 07:00 PM, George Neuner wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:29:46 -0800, Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net>
> wrote:
> 
>>     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.
> 
> Lew is correct.  Under the Bern convention - which is followed (at
> least theoretically) by all WIPO countries - the author of any work
> retains an implicit copyright which requires no statement or mark.

Simply as a commentary, because of the way that Article 2 "Protected
Works" of the Berne Convention is written, efforts have been made to
give that language some more teeth when it comes to computer code. For
example, the WTO TRIPS agreement explicitly indicates that computer
programs and certain compilations of data are to be considered literary
works under the 1971 Berne Convention.

If it weren't for that, or other special pronouncements, a reasonable
person could be excused for thinking that a computer program is not a
literary or artistic work.

> Code posted in an online tutorial or other web article ordinarily is
> NOT public domain - it belongs to the author and some rights may
> belong to the owner of the site, the same as with a print article.
> Unless the code carries a license or the text contains a statement by
> the author explicitly granting permission to use the code, it legally
> can be used for *only* for education under the Fair Use provision of
> Copyright law.  It should *not* be used for any other purpose without
> obtaining permission.
> 
> However, code posted to a public discussion forum *is* presumed to
> have been deliberately put into the public domain unless there is a
> license or statement by the author which indicates otherwise.  
> 
> The danger here is that the code may have been copied illegally from
> somewhere else.  Ignoranance of the origin of the code *might* shield
> you from paying so-called "deliberate" damages in a copyright lawsuit
> (meaning you *knew* it was a copyright violation but did it anyway),
> but it won't protect you from the basic use violation.
> 
> Some people remember to say that the posted code is their own and that
> it is free to use, but many do not.
> 
> The bottom line is that you should always assume that you CAN'T use
> any code that you may come across unless it carries a free use
> license.  For any other case, you should contact the author and obtain
> permission to use it.
> 
> IANAL
> George

IANAL too. There are some good links for Not-A-Lawyers like us, such as
http://law.unh.edu/thomasfield/ipbasics/copyright-for-computer-authors.php.
These follow from the basic principle that a layman is an idiot for not
consulting a lawyer in matters of law, but they are doubly an idiot if
they consult a lawyer without learning what a *layman* should know about
the topic. [1]

As Thomas Field points out in that online reference, the most important
risk is not that of liability, it is of suit. IOW, in matters of
copyright who cares whether or not you're in the right, what matters is
whether some a**hole drags you into court. Since it is basically
impossible to write independent code without appearing to violate
copyright sooner or later [2] (assuming that all other programmers have
eyeballs on your source), your best protection is to (1) not open source
your code, (2) use comments liberally, (3) be creative with variable and
method and class names, and (4) don't open source your code.

AHS

1. Some people would have it that non-lawyers are completely unable to
understand any law. I have no patience for them. These are probably the
same people that don't know zilch about their cars and leave it all up
to their mechanic.

2. Although it is theoretically a defense against copyright infringement
that you independently wrote that code - and it's certainly possible
that you did - good luck with that in the courts.
-- 
...wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their
own government...
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1789

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

#12145

On 2/17/2012 4:21 AM, Lew 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.
>
> 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.

Generalizing about the web is difficult. The web is partly commercial
and source code is made available under many different licenses. So
it would be difficult to argue that source code being freely available
on the web means us as you want.

But for usenet or certain specific web sites dedicated to help
other with programming problems, then the only realistic purpose
of posting code is for people to use it. So I would argue that
clicking submit indeed is giving out a permissive license to the
code.

You do need a permission to use code, but I am not sure
that the permission need to be in writing.

Arne

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

#12149

Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

(snip)

> Generalizing about the web is difficult. The web is partly commercial
> and source code is made available under many different licenses. So
> it would be difficult to argue that source code being freely available
> on the web means us as you want.

(snip)

I explicitly copyright this newsgroup post. I don't authorize
you to copy it to your computer memory, view it on the screen,
store it on a news server, disk, tape, or any storage and
retrieval system, or otherwise do anything with it.

Even more, I don't allow you to even think about doing one
of those things. 

> You do need a permission to use code, but I am not sure
> that the permission need to be in writing.

(Copyright 2012)

-- glen

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

#12153

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:42:32 +0000 (UTC), glen herrmannsfeldt
<gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

>Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>> Generalizing about the web is difficult. The web is partly commercial
>> and source code is made available under many different licenses. So
>> it would be difficult to argue that source code being freely available
>> on the web means us as you want.
>
>(snip)
>
>I explicitly copyright this newsgroup post. I don't authorize
>you to copy it to your computer memory, view it on the screen,
>store it on a news server, disk, tape, or any storage and
>retrieval system, or otherwise do anything with it.

     "Your Honour, in posting the post in question, the plaintiff was
obviously engaged in entrapment, and I am countersuing him for nearly
everything.  I will graciously allow him to keep the shirt on his back
as sunburns can really smart."

>Even more, I don't allow you to even think about doing one
>of those things. 

     Even if your copyright is valid, you can not stop someone from
thinking of doing things.

>> You do need a permission to use code, but I am not sure
>> that the permission need to be in writing.
>
>(Copyright 2012)

     Too late.  We are into February already.  A patent will not work
either.  We have 47 days of prior art.

     No, the humour did not escape me.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#12155

Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote:

(snip, I wrote)

>>I explicitly copyright this newsgroup post. I don't authorize
>>you to copy it to your computer memory, view it on the screen,
>>store it on a news server, disk, tape, or any storage and
>>retrieval system, or otherwise do anything with it.

> "Your Honour, in posting the post in question, the plaintiff was
> obviously engaged in entrapment, and I am countersuing him for nearly
> everything.  I will graciously allow him to keep the shirt on his back
> as sunburns can really smart."

Thanks. Though not much sun today.

>>Even more, I don't allow you to even think about doing one
>>of those things. 

> Even if your copyright is valid, you can not stop someone from
> thinking of doing things.

As I understand it, that is generally true except in (US)
immigration law. (I don't remember the details, but it is
different than almost everything else in the law.)

Then there is the always popular sign:

  "Don't even think of parking here"

-- glen

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

#12178

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 01:37:36 +0000 (UTC), glen herrmannsfeldt
<gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

[snip]

>Then there is the always popular sign:
>
>  "Don't even think of parking here"

     I prefer
          "Wizards' Guild Parking Only -- Violators Will Be Toad"
but that is a different area with different enforcement methods.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#12082

Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> wrote in
news:Cs2dnY62Arv156DSnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@earthlink.com: 

> 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
> 

That seems like very sound advice. Thank you both, Lew and Patricia.

-- 
Novice

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

#12112

On Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:51:34 PM UTC-8, 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.

That wouldn't be legal advice, per se. You'd still need legal advice in order to enter into a contract with the author. The usual colloquial meaning of the 
term "legal advice" is expert counsel in the area of legal ramifications with 
one's own interest paramount. That is unlikely to be the conversation one has 
with a work's author. It is, granted, a useful conversation, but not one that 
I'd call "legal advice".


> 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.

And if copyright law is an issue, or you have reasonable cause to expect liability concerns to be relevant, and absolutely if there's any money at 
stake, somewhere in those early steps would be to seek legal advice.

In addition to the conversations with the author.

-- 
Lew

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

#12080

On 12-02-16 04:59 PM, Lew wrote:
> 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?
> 
Bit of an overheated reaction to what I thought were reasonable questions.

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?

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

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.

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

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

#12104

Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:
 
> 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. [SNIP]

Three: example code are rarely production quality code. It will
usually have sacrificed proper error handling and logging in favour of
terseness and focus.

-- 
Leif Roar Moldskred

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

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

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

csiph-web