Is Wizard-Code a Derived Work?

worldcitizen asks: "Now, with all the noise from the SCO case regarding copyrights, what constitutes a derivative work and who owns what, a question started creeping up: What would happen if Microsoft starts claiming copyright infringement or other Intellectual Property claims in the wizard-inserted code that Visual C++ generates? Would it be possible that even the simplest 'Hello, world' is tainted? Copyrights don't even require uniform enforcement. Could they selectively enforce it on Free Software projects for Windows that have used VC++ for development? Could they license it in such a way that makes it illegal to use Visual C++ for Free Software? Should this be a wake-up call to never use Visual C++ unless you have a cross-licensing agreement with Microsoft (obviously not for Free Software projects)?"

Comments

is it possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've wondered about this. Not that Microsoft would do it, but maybe a smaller stupider company in a subtle way: claim copyright on the output of the program.

if the program spits out code that's already written (i.e., it copies a template and replaces some variables) I'm sure you could say YES of course it's possible.

But what if the program spits out, say, machine code? What about compilers? what if the code is generated from your input only.

I remember reading an interview with electronic musicians Autechre. They use algorithmic generators for some of their music and they wanted to put out their next CD as a program instead of audio. But they didn't because they wouldn't be able to claim copyright on the output and folks would put out the output as their own compositions (Autechre is usually the one everybody copies for the cutting edge sound anyway).

I was thinking, GOOD, imagine if Yamaha or Native Instruments copyrighted the output of their instruments/software. That would SUCK.

Anybody know how the law works here??

Re:April Fools?

[evalhalla]

Hehe. "I wrote my novel using MS Word. Now that I'm selling it, couldn't MS come after me for copyright infringement, since I used their pagination tools?"

This is slighty a different matter: copyright law does not cover what you do with other's tools, while it does surely cover the pieces of other's code that you put in your software when using VS wizards. In the first case you would have the right to do whatever you want with your work, unless forbidden by some contract or license; in the second case you wouldn't have the right to use those code parts, unless allowed by a proper license.

Of course they could put some "wicked" clausole in MS Word, but until now they seem to have brain enough not to do so. Maybe they would if they had really all of the wp market, right now it would be suicide.

As for the license part you're right: the right place to get an answer is the VS license, but that could change and one could be put in such conditions where it's only choices could be to change the license of his software, rewrite it from scratch with some other tool, removing all VB wizard parts or stop updating it. This should be considered before choosing a tool for development, I believe.

Re:subject

[Otter]

Should this be a wake-up call to never use Visual C++ unless you have a cross-licensing agreement with Microsoft (obviously not for Free Software projects)?

No. They won't do this.

While a) you're most likely right and b) this is the sort of lazy question that gives Ask Slashdot a bad name (Hello! Read the license!):

The fact is that Microsoft did prohibit the use of the Mobile Internet Tools SDK for making GPL-licensed apps.

What about the same question with a GPLed compiler

[AdamBa]

If you used a Wizard produced by a compiler licensed under the GPL...where obviously the source code that the wizard generates for you is contained *somewhere* in the GPLed source of the compiler...is the resulting code a "work based on the Program" and therefore the whole thing is covered by the GPL?

For example consider this from the GPL FAQ:

Can I use GPL-covered editors such as GNU Emacs to develop non-free programs? Can I use PL-covered tools such as GCC to compile them?

Yes, because the copyright on the editors and tools does not cover the code you write. Using them does not place any restrictions, legally, on the license you use for your code.

Some programs copy parts of themselves into the output for technical reasons--for example, Bison copies a standard parser program into its output file. In such cases, the copied text in the output is covered by the same license that covers it in the source code. Meanwhile, the part of the output which is derived from the program's input inherits the copyright status of the input.

As it happens, Bison can also be used to develop non-free programs. This is because we decided to explicitly permit the use of the Bison standard parser program in Bison output files without restriction. We made the decision because there were other tools comparable to Bison which already permitted use for non-free programs.

This makes it pretty unclear. A Wizard is certainly "copy[ing] parts of themselves into the output for technical reasons". It sounds like Bison has an explicit exception for this case, but that's just pragmatism because other comparable tools existed.

- adam

That wizards exist validates reverse engineering

[Rares Marian]

If a program can spit out code, notwithstanding code that does more than the minimum to complete the requested task, then the only creative element is the wizard user's decisions. Therefore it should belong to the user regardless what the license. Primarily because the wizard user has already paid for the creative elements of the development environment by purchasing the IDE.

If the code does more or differently from what the wizard user asks (like efficient design, or using one piece of code, where the wizard doesn't actually do anything but give the wizard user a security blanket), then stick that in a library and charge for the library. Otherwise that wizard is a contradiction in itself.

Stop trying to give users licensing heebie-jeebie, you can make your money otherwise (licensed libs), and quit trying to make creative people pay for their own creativity.

I have no problem making a buck on Free Software. Neither does FSF

I have a problem where someone tries to charge the developers. That's extortion.

Re:Stop Playing Amateur Lawyer

[reallocate]

I don't see much reason to play endless "what if" games.

Back in reality land, if someone wants to violate a Micrsoft license, or anyone's license, for that matter, they'd better be prepared to deal with the legal consequences. Contrary to the commonly held opinion around here, a firm moral conviction isn't enough to win in court. The other side might just think they're right.

Re:subject

[ray-auch]

Actually they don't need to explicitly prohibit GPL - if they just require you to use a binary redistributable component then GPL excludes itself.

By my reckoning pretty much all GPL windows development is dodgy unless you use stuff like cygwin - because MS don't always ship C-runtime with windows OSes (even when they do it is typically several versions behind) and they only give you binary redistribution licence. That means you have a required library that you can't ship under gpl, or ship it's source, or treat it as system-exception library (since MS doesn't ship it with the OS) - so you can't write a GPLed app using MS C-runtime (or MFC or VB runtime or .NET runtime or...). But that's just IMHO and IANAL.