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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #47462 > unrolled thread

Re: Re-using copyrighted code

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Re-using copyrighted code Malte Forkel <malte.forkel@berlin.de> - 2013-06-09 15:21 +0200
    Re: Re-using copyrighted code Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2013-06-09 08:10 -0700
      Re: Re-using copyrighted code Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-10 01:17 +1000
      Re: Re-using copyrighted code Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-06-09 15:27 +0000
      Re: Re-using copyrighted code Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-06-09 08:39 -0700
      Re: Re-using copyrighted code Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-10 01:43 +1000

#47462 — Re: Re-using copyrighted code

I have asked the PSF for help regarding the implications of the license
status of code from sre_parse.py and the missing  license statement in
sre.py. I'll happily report their answer to the list I they don't reply
in this thread.

At least partially, my confusion seems to be caused by the dichotomy of
the concepts of copyright and license. How do these relate to each other?

I understand that I have to pick a license for my package. And may be
I'm not free to pick any open source license due the license used by
Secret Labs AB. But how does that relate to the copyright statements?
Should I put my own copyright line in every source file in the package?
How about the file that re-uses portions of sre_parse.py? Can there or
should there be two copyright lines in that file, one from Secret Labs,
one my own?

Malte

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#47465

On Sunday, June 9, 2013 8:21:43 AM UTC-5, Malte Forkel wrote:
> I have asked the PSF for help regarding the implications of the license
> status of code from sre_parse.py and the missing  license statement in
> sre.py. I'll happily report their answer to the list I they don't reply
> in this thread.

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa (deep breath...)

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa

I can't say much with great certainty about the leadership of this community, but what i can say for sure is they are NOT going to waste one second of their so-called "precious" time responding to legitimate questions (like yours).

The Secret Labs license is very explicit: "All rights reserved". That line means you can't touch it under pain of lawsuit.

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

#47466

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Rick Johnson
<rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, June 9, 2013 8:21:43 AM UTC-5, Malte Forkel wrote:
>> I have asked the PSF for help regarding the implications of the license
>> status of code from sre_parse.py and the missing  license statement in
>> sre.py. I'll happily report their answer to the list I they don't reply
>> in this thread.
>
> HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa (deep breath...)
>
> HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
>
> I can't say much with great certainty about the leadership of this community, but what i can say for sure is they are NOT going to waste one second of their so-called "precious" time responding to legitimate questions (like yours).
>
> The Secret Labs license is very explicit: "All rights reserved". That line means you can't touch it under pain of lawsuit.

Fortunately for all of us, Rick is a troll and not a lawyer.

ChrisA

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

#47467

On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 08:10:13 -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:

> The Secret Labs license is very explicit: "All rights reserved". That
> line means you can't touch it under pain of lawsuit.

It's also very explicit that the code can be redistributed.

However, there is no explicit rights to modification granted.


-- 
Steven

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

#47468

> The Secret Labs license is very explicit: "All rights reserved". That line means you can't touch it under pain of lawsuit.

That's not true.  It means whatever rights they do have, they are
stating, in effect, that they have not given them away.  But this is a
difficult legal point, because by open sourcing their IP, they've
already given away from of their rights.
-- 
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington

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

#47469

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The Secret Labs license is very explicit: "All rights reserved". That line means you can't touch it under pain of lawsuit.
>
> That's not true.  It means whatever rights they do have, they are
> stating, in effect, that they have not given them away.  But this is a
> difficult legal point, because by open sourcing their IP, they've
> already given away from of their rights.

They start by reserving all rights. Then they say "And you may use
this, on these conditions". This is the normal order of things.

The words "All rights reserved" don't actually add anything, now. (I'm
given to understand they used to have significance, at least in some
jurisdictions, but not any more.) So just "Copyright <date> <your
name>" is sufficient.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web