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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #47498 > 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 Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-06-09 14:08 -0700
    Re: Re-using copyrighted code Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2013-06-09 18:17 -0700
    Re: Re-using copyrighted code Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-06-10 05:31 +0000
      Re: Re-using copyrighted code Malte Forkel <malte.forkel@berlin.de> - 2013-06-10 08:42 +0200
        Re: Re-using copyrighted code Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-06-11 02:48 +0000
      Re: Re-using copyrighted code Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-10 17:17 +1000
    Re: Re-using copyrighted code llanitedave <llanitedave@veawb.coop> - 2013-06-10 09:29 -0700
      Re: Re-using copyrighted code Joshua Landau <joshua.landau.ws@gmail.com> - 2013-06-10 20:32 +0100
      Re: Re-using copyrighted code Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-06-10 12:40 -0700
        Re: Re-using copyrighted code llanitedave <llanitedave@veawb.coop> - 2013-06-10 13:36 -0700
      Re: Re-using copyrighted code Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-11 06:09 +1000

#47498 — Re: Re-using copyrighted code

>> That's not entirely correct.  If he *publishes* his code (I'm using
>> this term "publish" technically to mean "put forth in a way where
>> anyone of the general public can or is encouraged to view"), then he
>> is *tacitly* giving up protections that secrecy (or *not* disclosing
>> it) would *automatically* grant.  The only preserved right is
>> authorship after that.   So it can be re-distributed freely, if
>> authorship is preserved.  The only issue after that is "fair use" and
>> that includes running the program (not merely copying the source).
>
> No, the original author retains all rights except those explicitly
> granted. The same way that obtaining the "source" to a song does not
> give you the right to redistribute the song all you want.

No, you are right only by the *word* of the law, but you have not
included the authors *actions*.  A court has to include both.

He explicitly did not *retain* his rights when he *published* his
code.  There is not word of law that is necessary when his actions
have already done the deed (unless under coercion, of course).

> Fair use has nothing to do with money. It depends on how the work is
> used and how you've changed it. Weird Al's song parodies are fair use,
> even though he sells them.

That can't really be claimed without a case being brought against him.
 Michael Jackson, for example, probably could have made a case against
WierdAl, but did not -- that does not automatically mean that
WierdAl's use was fair-use in the slightest.  In fact, it probably was
not, but MJ made enough money that he probably also didn't want to the
PR loss.

> You distributing copies of a commercial
> software to everyone is not fair use, even though you aren't making
> money.

It *is* absolutely fair use, if that commercial software *published*
their code (in the definition I gave earlier).  If you stole the code
off their protected servers, it is not fair use.

>> Well this is where one must make a distinction with fair-use -- if I
>> re-publish my modifications then the code is still subject to the
>> terms by the original author.  If I make a copy for myself and run the
>> problem for personal, non-commercial use, then I am in the domain of
>> fair use and have no other obligations.
>
> Again, no. The GPL does not restrict your rights when running on
> machines you control, but that's just because of the terms of the
> license. Most commercial licenses include terms like "no reverse
> engineering the software" that have nothing to do with distribution.

Close-source software could automatically be considered "protected",
but that is only out of kindness.  Publishing software, even
closed-source software opens a company to some level
reverse-engineering by the nature of computers and by the fact that
the techniques of turning machine code into assembly are well known.
So they explicitly state that they do not give permission to do so,
yet this is not worth much of anything except for the fact that most
people are intimidated to go against a large software company to argue
their rights.

Apparently these companies have already seen this loophole and have
made things like DRM to put a legalistic container around what would
otherwise be de facto published (machine) code.  But this is not a
legit workaround either and companies have essentially stealing from
the intellectual and creative communities.

There is no legitimate argument against a personal user figuring out
how software works for personal use.  If they don't want people to
"figure it out", they'll have to open stores where people can run
their special software on machines that are under their control.

I'm sorry, this is just the way it is -- everyone's just gone along
with the program tacitly because they get intimidated by the legal
system.  But the law is for people, not for lawyers.

-- 
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#47507

On Sunday, June 9, 2013 4:08:54 PM UTC-5, zipher wrote:
> >> That's not entirely correct.  If he *publishes* his code (I'm using
> 
> >> this term "publish" technically to mean "put forth in a way where
> 
> >> anyone of the general public can or is encouraged to view"), then he
> 
> >> is *tacitly* giving up protections that secrecy (or *not* disclosing
> 
> >> it) would *automatically* grant.  The only preserved right is
> 
> >> authorship after that.   So it can be re-distributed freely, if
> 
> >> authorship is preserved.  The only issue after that is "fair use" and
> 
> >> that includes running the program (not merely copying the source).
> 
> >
> 
> > No, the original author retains all rights except those explicitly
> 
> > granted. The same way that obtaining the "source" to a song does not
> 
> > give you the right to redistribute the song all you want.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are right only by the *word* of the law, but you have not
> 
> included the authors *actions*.  A court has to include both.
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly did not *retain* his rights when he *published* his
> 
> code.  There is not word of law that is necessary when his actions
> 
> have already done the deed (unless under coercion, of course).
> 
> 
> 
> > Fair use has nothing to do with money. It depends on how the work is
> 
> > used and how you've changed it. Weird Al's song parodies are fair use,
> 
> > even though he sells them.
> 
> 
> 
> That can't really be claimed without a case being brought against him.
> 
>  Michael Jackson, for example, probably could have made a case against
> 
> WierdAl, but did not -- that does not automatically mean that
> 
> WierdAl's use was fair-use in the slightest.  In fact, it probably was
> 
> not, but MJ made enough money that he probably also didn't want to the
> 
> PR loss.
> 
> 
> 
> > You distributing copies of a commercial
> 
> > software to everyone is not fair use, even though you aren't making
> 
> > money.
> 
> 
> 
> It *is* absolutely fair use, if that commercial software *published*
> 
> their code (in the definition I gave earlier).  If you stole the code
> 
> off their protected servers, it is not fair use.
> 
> 
> 
> >> Well this is where one must make a distinction with fair-use -- if I
> 
> >> re-publish my modifications then the code is still subject to the
> 
> >> terms by the original author.  If I make a copy for myself and run the
> 
> >> problem for personal, non-commercial use, then I am in the domain of
> 
> >> fair use and have no other obligations.
> 
> >
> 
> > Again, no. The GPL does not restrict your rights when running on
> 
> > machines you control, but that's just because of the terms of the
> 
> > license. Most commercial licenses include terms like "no reverse
> 
> > engineering the software" that have nothing to do with distribution.
> 
> 
> 
> Close-source software could automatically be considered "protected",
> 
> but that is only out of kindness.  Publishing software, even
> 
> closed-source software opens a company to some level
> 
> reverse-engineering by the nature of computers and by the fact that
> 
> the techniques of turning machine code into assembly are well known.
> 
> So they explicitly state that they do not give permission to do so,
> 
> yet this is not worth much of anything except for the fact that most
> 
> people are intimidated to go against a large software company to argue
> 
> their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently these companies have already seen this loophole and have
> 
> made things like DRM to put a legalistic container around what would
> 
> otherwise be de facto published (machine) code.  But this is not a
> 
> legit workaround either and companies have essentially stealing from
> 
> the intellectual and creative communities.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no legitimate argument against a personal user figuring out
> 
> how software works for personal use.  If they don't want people to
> 
> "figure it out", they'll have to open stores where people can run
> 
> their special software on machines that are under their control.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, this is just the way it is -- everyone's just gone along
> 
> with the program tacitly because they get intimidated by the legal
> 
> system.  But the law is for people, not for lawyers.

Preach on my brother, Preach on! It's amazing how much control you can leverage on the populace of lemmings from a few well placed tv ads and some OP-ED propaganda.

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

#47519

On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 14:08:54 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:

> I'm sorry, this is just the way it is -- everyone's just gone along with
> the program tacitly because they get intimidated by the legal system. 

Your definition of "just the way it is" does not agree with mine. You're 
describing how you *want* copyright law to be, rather than how it 
actually is.

I've noticed something abut the difference between progressives and 
liberals, compared to a particular type of American conservative. You 
know the ones -- they're big on states rights, "Don't Tread On Me" 
bravado, repealing income tax, guns, god, and the right to refuse service 
to anyone they like. (And they never, ever, not in a million years, 
imagine *themselves* as the one being discriminated against.)

When progressives and liberals find a law they don't like, they 
invariable argue that the law is unjust or unfair, or even illegal, and 
that it should be repealed or fixed. They say things like "repeatedly 
extending copyright terms retroactively goes against the stated purpose 
of copyright, it is harmful to society as a whole, and we should stop 
doing it every time Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain". Or 
they say, "Fair use is important, and the courts ought to strengthen it 
rather than continuing to weaken it as they have been."

In other words, they distinguish between how things *are* and how they 
*should be*.

This particular subset of American conservatives, on the other hand, 
argue differently when they find a law they don't like. Rather than say 
that copyright terms *ought to be* for 28 years, like in the good old 
days before Disney bought the United States Congress, they say things 
like "copyright lasts for 28 years, don't let the courts intimidate you 
into believing differently". Rather than say that fair use *should* allow 
you to make a copy for personal use, they say things like "fair use lets 
you make a copy of anything for personal use, that's just the way it is, 
if you think different you've been intimidated".

It's a fascinating difference.

On the one hand, their recognition that ultimately all laws and rights 
boil down to the question of who is best at imposing their will via the 
application of force is refreshingly realistic; on the other hand their 
need to explicitly refer to it as often as they do is rather worrying.

So, coming back to reality, copyright law, as it is enforced (when you 
come down to it) by men and women with big guns, does not allow you to 
make personal copies of anything you like as "fair use". The precise 
details of fair use differ from country to country, but generally fair 
use allows you to make a copy of a *small* portion of a work, for the 
purposes of (e.g.) academic commentary, reviews, parody or criticism. 
Transformative fair use (e.g. remixing and sampling) is often right on 
the edge, and therefore legally risky. E.g. even if taking a small sample 
of a song and inserting it into your own music falls under fair use, in 
practice the courts usually side with whoever brings the most lawyers, so 
it is cheaper to just pay a licence fee up front. Personally, I think 
that's terrible, but that's the way it is at this moment in history.

Of course, in practice copyright law is not always enforced. Many people 
have created mix tapes of songs recorded from the radio, which is as 
clear a case of copyright infringement as there is, but very few of them 
have been sued. The internet is full of people torrenting movies and TV 
shows, and only a tiny proportion have been sued, but those that have 
often lose an exorbitant amount compared to the actual economic harm 
committed. Ripping a CD to your iPod is strictly illegal in most 
countries, but unlikely to be pursued; ripping a CD and then selling 
copies of the mp3 over the Internet will likely have the police come 
knocking unless you're in a part of the world that doesn't recognise or 
enforce copyright.

So there is often a difference between what the law says and what the law 
actually enforces.

But bringing it back to the original topic, I believe that the philosophy 
of FOSS is that we should try our best to honour the intentions of the 
writer, not to find some legal loophole that permits us to copy his or 
her work against their wishes.



-- 
Steven

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

#47520

Am 10.06.2013 07:31, schrieb Steven D'Aprano:
> 
> But bringing it back to the original topic, I believe that the philosophy 
> of FOSS is that we should try our best to honour the intentions of the 
> writer, not to find some legal loophole that permits us to copy his or 
> her work against their wishes.
> 

Woh! I didn't expect my naive question to trigger that kind of
discussion. Thanks to all of you.  While I'm grateful for all the input,
I have to admit I still don't really know what to do yet.

In addition to asking the PSF, I've written to PythonWare (formerly
Secret Labs) about their point of view.  I'll report their responses.

Had I known in the beginning how convoluted things would become, I might
have considered two other options: Just publish or keep the code to
myself.  But I still think, first understanding the legal aspects and
then publishing (to give back at least a little) is the way to go.

I certainly hope that there is no software out thre that didn't get
released to the public because its author found the legal implications
to difficult to handle.  So there should exist some simple guidelines to
help people like me to prepare themselves and their code for that step.
 Unfortenately, I just haven't discovered them.  At least for the Python
universe, PyPI would be a good place to setup a page or link to that
kind of information.  Or is it there already and I have simply
overlooked it?

Malte

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

#47630

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:42:07 +0200, Malte Forkel wrote:

> Am 10.06.2013 07:31, schrieb Steven D'Aprano:
>> 
>> But bringing it back to the original topic, I believe that the
>> philosophy of FOSS is that we should try our best to honour the
>> intentions of the writer, not to find some legal loophole that permits
>> us to copy his or her work against their wishes.
>> 
>> 
> Woh! I didn't expect my naive question to trigger that kind of
> discussion. Thanks to all of you.  While I'm grateful for all the input,
> I have to admit I still don't really know what to do yet.
> 
> In addition to asking the PSF, I've written to PythonWare (formerly
> Secret Labs) about their point of view.  I'll report their responses.

In my opinion, this is the right thing to do. And thank you in advance 
for coming back with their responses, if any.


[...]
> Had I known in the beginning how convoluted things would become, I might
> I certainly hope that there is no software out thre that didn't get
> released to the public because its author found the legal implications
> to difficult to handle.


Of course there is. That's the cost of having copyright in the first 
place. Since people can "own" particular chunks of code, or pieces of 
text, there is always the risk that a chunk of code you have written, or 
piece of text, happens to be similar enough to someone else's that you 
are infringing on their copyright.

(One of the most egregious abuses of copyright, in my opinon:

http://tuxdeluxe.org/node/88

Well, actually, there are probably far worse abuses. Men At Work's "Down 
Under" being judged as infringing the Kookaburra children's song is 
worse, since the pieces are as different as it is possible for music to 
be. But the above is one of the funniest egregious abuses of copyright.)

But the trade-off is the hope that by granting monopoly privileges to the 
author, more people will be encouraged to create who otherwise wouldn't 
have, than people will be discouraged.

(Interesting, as much as "the promotion of arts and sciences" has been 
the stated aim of copyright for a couple of centuries now[1], there's no 
actual evidence that it does.)




[1] But not all the way back to the first ever copyright law, which was 
out-and-out a bribe to printers from the British Crown: "don't print 
anything we don't like, and we'll enforce your monopoly to print".


-- 
Steven

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

#47523

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Malte Forkel <malte.forkel@berlin.de> wrote:
> Had I known in the beginning how convoluted things would become, I might
> have considered two other options: Just publish or keep the code to
> myself.  But I still think, first understanding the legal aspects and
> then publishing (to give back at least a little) is the way to go.
>
> I certainly hope that there is no software out thre that didn't get
> released to the public because its author found the legal implications
> to difficult to handle.

Understanding is good :)

Unfortunately there will be heaps of software that didn't get released
owing to potential legal messes. It's a loss that could be partially
avoided in future by authors sticking to the well-known licenses; it's
easy to make a derivative work based on three or four different
components if they all use the same license. I've seen issues all over
the place stemming from GNU Readline (which is GPL, not LGPL) and
something not GPL-compat being both linked to the same application;
and it's so likely as to be practically certain that there have been
things left unreleased because of that.

ChrisA

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

#47578

On Sunday, June 9, 2013 2:08:54 PM UTC-7, zipher wrote:
> 
> 
> > Fair use has nothing to do with money. It depends on how the work is
> 
> > used and how you've changed it. Weird Al's song parodies are fair use,
> 
> > even though he sells them.
> 
> 
> 
> That can't really be claimed without a case being brought against him.
> 
>  Michael Jackson, for example, probably could have made a case against
> 
> WierdAl, but did not -- that does not automatically mean that
> 
> WierdAl's use was fair-use in the slightest.  In fact, it probably was
> 
> not, but MJ made enough money that he probably also didn't want to the
> 
> PR loss.
> 
> 
> 

Weird Al can be a complex case, because sometimes his songs are true parodies, and sometimes they're more satires.  Parody has a pretty firm history of being protected under fair use, and Weird Al's MJ-inspired songs ("Fat" and "Eat It") are clearly parodies.  (As is his more recent Lady Gaga sendup "Perform This Way", while his Star wars saga "The Story Begins" and Coolio-esque "Amish Paradise" are more like satires).

So in the case of Weird Al's Michael Jackson parodies, he would be protected under law if MJ had decided to sue.

However, there's another reason that Weird Al's "victims" never file a suit.  First, he always gets permission from them BEFORE publishing a song.  Second, the objects of his skewering usually like the fact that they've been noticed by him.  Madonna actually suggested the idea of "Like a Surgeon", and when he did "Smells Like Nirvana", the group felt like they'd finally made it.

This is all kind of OT, of course, except to point out that fair use is not as straightforward as it might seem, but neither is prohibition of reuse.

However, I have yet to see an example of source code that qualifies as either parody or satire under any standard.

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

#47590

On 10 June 2013 17:29, llanitedave <llanitedave@veawb.coop> wrote:
> However, I have yet to see an example of source code that qualifies as either parody or satire under any standard.

You should try reading Perl.

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

#47592

> Weird Al can be a complex case, because sometimes his songs are true parodies, and sometimes they're more satires.  Parody has a pretty firm history of being protected under fair use, and Weird Al's MJ-inspired songs ("Fat" and "Eat It") are clearly parodies.  (As is his more recent Lady Gaga sendup "Perform This Way", while his Star wars saga "The Story Begins" and Coolio-esque "Amish Paradise" are more like satires).
>
> So in the case of Weird Al's Michael Jackson parodies, he would be protected under law if MJ had decided to sue.

Not entirely.  The use of the musical tune is not a parody, only the
lyrics.  But if, like you say, he did get permission, then he is safe.

But you bring up a point of *criticism* which is distinct from re-use.
-- 
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington

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

#47604

On Monday, June 10, 2013 12:40:57 PM UTC-7, zipher wrote:
> > Weird Al can be a complex case, because sometimes his songs are true parodies, and sometimes they're more satires.  Parody has a pretty firm history of being protected under fair use, and Weird Al's MJ-inspired songs ("Fat" and "Eat It") are clearly parodies.  (As is his more recent Lady Gaga sendup "Perform This Way", while his Star wars saga "The Story Begins" and Coolio-esque "Amish Paradise" are more like satires).
> 
> >
> 
> > So in the case of Weird Al's Michael Jackson parodies, he would be protected under law if MJ had decided to sue.
> 
> 
> 
> Not entirely.  The use of the musical tune is not a parody, only the
> 
> lyrics.  But if, like you say, he did get permission, then he is safe.
> 
> 
> 
> But you bring up a point of *criticism* which is distinct from re-use.
> 
> -- 
> 
> MarkJ
> 
> Tacoma, Washington


In this case, the tune and the lyrics really aren't separable.  What's being parodied is the entire work, including the music video, down to the costumes, the dance moves, and the guitar solo.  It's the work, taken as a whole.

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

#47598

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Weird Al can be a complex case, because sometimes his songs are true parodies, and sometimes they're more satires.  Parody has a pretty firm history of being protected under fair use, and Weird Al's MJ-inspired songs ("Fat" and "Eat It") are clearly parodies.  (As is his more recent Lady Gaga sendup "Perform This Way", while his Star wars saga "The Story Begins" and Coolio-esque "Amish Paradise" are more like satires).
>>
>> So in the case of Weird Al's Michael Jackson parodies, he would be protected under law if MJ had decided to sue.
>
> Not entirely.  The use of the musical tune is not a parody, only the
> lyrics.  But if, like you say, he did get permission, then he is safe.

Citing once again Gilbert and Sullivan, it's definitely possible for a
tune to be a parody. Compare "Poor Wand'ring One" from G&S's Pirates
of Penzance with "Sempre Libera" from Verdi's La Traviata - the former
is most definitely a parody of the latter. (And the song name is
reminiscent of the opera name, too.) There are other parodies in
Gilbert and Sullivan, of both lyrical and musical forms; sometimes
both, like when a set of warriors take off their armor before a fight,
set to music similar to that used in Handel's works for warriors
*putting on* armor.

There's plenty of room to make direct or indirect references in music.
Sometimes all it takes is a bar or two, and everyone knows what you're
parodying. That's even tighter than words!

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web