Slashdot Mirror
Your License Is Your Interface
dp619 writes "License-free software has become a thing. Only 14.9% of repositories on GitHub have a license, according to recent Software Freedom Law Center research. Red Monk has observed that this trend is occurring principally among younger software developers. Outercurve Foundation technical evangelist Eric Schultz has offered up his opinion, saying, 'As an active developer I want to add a slightly different perspective on the dangers of releasing unlicensed software. My perspective is based on a simple phrase: "Your License Is Your Interface."' He adds, 'A license similarly defines the interaction between the software, or more precisely the creators of the software, and users. Just like an interface, a license defines intended behavior of users of the software, such as the four essential freedoms or the ten pillars of the Open Source Definition. Just like an interface, a license prevents unintended behavior of users of the software, which depending on the open source license, may disclaim the original author of liability for use of the software, prohibit redistribution without recognizing the original author or prohibit distribution of derivatives under a more restrictive license. When it comes to legal use and distribution of your software, your license IS your interface.'"
it always misleads with picking "GNU GPL" or "Creative Commons" but not actually representing the said license in the work itself. I've seen a few of these on Sourceforge that only exploited the service only to provide redistribution of non-Free materials contrary to their license.
Eric Schultz appears to underestimate the ability of programmers to not give shit about licensing.
Lawyers want to wheedle their ways into all our lives. Ignore them, they won't go away, but it will simplify your life.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Nobody wants your software. So you might as well release it totally unencumbered.
"different perspective on the dangers of releasing unlicensed software. "
Technically, you cannot release unlicensed software. Sure, go ahead and post it to a public repository, but without an explicit license, copyright law forbids anyone else to make use of it. So you haven't really released it, just posted it out there to tease people.
If you don't want to pick one and you don't care, at least say something like "released to the public domain" to make it explicit. (This option isn't available in all countries, though.)
Most creative commons requires attribution. If you really "don't care", you should explicitly state that your software is CC0
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
Here's what GitHub says in their terms of service:
We claim no intellectual property rights over the material you provide to the Service. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours. However, by setting your pages to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view your Content. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories.
That creates some interesting issues. When someone "forks" something, what rights do they have?
I suspect that many people not specifying a license for what they put on GitHub just assume GitHub owns everything.
3-clause BSD for small utilities, library function or scripts that are pretty much feature complete. It has the disclaimers and lets others used the code as they see fit without worrying about disclosing their source code.
GPL v.3 for code that are meant for open-source projects. It keeps the source code available and encourages others to contribute. I find that people are less likely to contribute if there is even a slight chance that someone else could make a commercial product out of it and keep the modifications to themselves.
The overwhelming bulk of my code is public-domain due to work requirements.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
The only reason for programmers to have licensing in their products is so they can include a statement about the author not being responsible for any errors or faults in the program, and to abrogate any responsibility for them to write decent code and for the product to do what it is supposed to do
Software without a license is like a poison for everyone else. There's typically no legal risk to a developer in releasing their software, since it's likely he has the copyright. But it creates a legal minefield for anyone else who uses or modifies the software, either directly or by using software that stupidly embeds such things. At any time the developer, or his employer, could sue, and there's nothing the user could do.
Ignoring lawyers does not simplify your life. Sure, it'll simplify your life today, but only by creating potential disasters in the future. You need to think about other people, and whole lifetimes, not just think about yourself today.
If you think that copyright should only apply to software if it's marked, then work to get the law changed. It used to be that way before 1976. But it's not 1976. I suspect that the law won't get changed, really. But intentionally creating dangers for other people is a terrible, nasty thing to do.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Perhaps their view is "I don't care what is done with it" - thus don't apply a license. Most licenses feel like you need to be a lawyer to navigate, so most probably avoid them.
I agree, using the honor system on people with no honor is pointless. The problem for you is once you've demonstrated your sociopath behavior people tend to avoid you. You may be anonymous in your posting, but we can spot you a mile away.
Your trick or treating friends knew you were a bit of an asshole, but not as big as your mama was. You probably steal from her too.
This is not how copyright law works!
Here's the other thing: without a license I can't use a copy. All software is copyrighted by default, unless there's an explicit dedication to the public domain. Absent a license, only the author of the software may make and distribute copies of it. So with no license on the software I'm OK looking at it on Github of the like, but making a copy of it onto my machine to build, use and redistribute as part of my own software is right out. I have no license from the copyright holder to make and distribute those copies. So if your software doesn't include a license? I can't safely touch it nor can I use it.
If you want to put no restrictions on reuse of your code, put it under something like the BSD or Apache license. But if you don't put it under some license, it's automatically under a license that says "You may not copy or redistribute this work, nor may you make and distribute works based on or derived from this work.".
What if I license my software as: "My software is not licensed". Is my software licensed or not?
Nope, not legally. Code is automatically copyrighted in any Berne signatory country. You can not relicense a work that you do not hold the copyright to.
Just like an interface, a license defines intended behavior of users of the software, such as the four essential freedoms or the ten pillars of the Open Source Definition.
With talk like this, why do people even wonder that GNU and OSI are falling out of favor?
It's a crazy thought, that maybe people truly want to give something away and don't care how it's used. Shocking.
That, and if young people feel like "you didn't lose anything if I make a copy, so it's not theft", then honestly, why would they feel entitled to the source code of forks of their project when they still have the original? It's pretty clear the message being _received_ by young people in regards to commercial software is that copyright is just a speed bump.
Also, a disclaimer is a disclaimer is not a license for distribution.
ok, well our legal department wont let us use a library without a license. If we really like yours we might contact you and ask for one, but most likely we'll move on to an alternative.
Speaking of danger, when someone sues you because your software crashed their airplane into a nuclear reactor, you're going to be wishing you'd picked a more restrictive license.
Specifically, one with a "no warranty" provision.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Your license is lawyer-ese for "Nobody is licensed to use this software."
Amen, brother !
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
If you don't want to use a real license, just use the DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE. It's one of the more permissive licenses...
If they're amenable to that, then there should be a rough listing of the terms they're willing to license the software on. There's simply a lot of software out there for any given application, more than I can reasonably sort through honestly, and one of my first filters is "Does it tell me what terms I can use it on?". Anything that doesn't, I can skip. If I don't find anything I can use that gives clear terms, then I may go back through the most promising of the rest and dig further into getting it.
As far as understanding licenses, my position is that if you're putting it out there in public you'd better have at least a basic understanding of copyright and licenses. Anyone who doesn't, probably also doesn't have enough development experience to put out something I can use readily. There may be exceptions, but again there's such a huge volume of software that I have to filter somehow and regardless of technical quality I probably don't want to deal with the legal tangle that comes with trying to license something from someone who doesn't understand licensing.
It's the same as with vendors: if they don't understand basic contracts, their product has to be really really special to make it worth dealing with them instead of one of the dozen other vendors who do know how to negotiate a contract.
See reply to the other anonymous coward above for a reply.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
The definition of obfuscation is to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy, or to make obscure or unclear.
In security, the normal rule is that the algorithm chosen should still be secure _even if the attacker knows what it is_.
On the other hand, passwords, crypto keys, etc. are all pieces of data that are secrets. This is a very different thing from obscure.
If this isn't a troll, you're giving actual software developers a bad name.
So you post your project on github without a license. Anybody using it can now sue your for whatever damages the project does to his machine. You know what I'm talking about; I know that at least once in your life you have put "rm -rf" in your Makefile, typed "make clean" and cleaned out your entire home directory because some shell variable was set to something you did not expect. Those of you with lower intelligence might have ran that on a production server and erased the company website. Now imagine somebody doing that with whatever unmaintained garbage you dumped in a github repository. You would be directly liable for any such damages, forcing you to declare bankruptcy, lose your house, your bank account, and your wife (if you have one), and die from starvation. So next time, add a license to your project. All you really need to do is copy the LICENSE file to the project directory. It will only take five seconds, and it may save your life.
It would have been most becoming, to you, to have posted this under any other name than "Coward" and "anonymous", sir.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
If GitHub made your personal interpretation a requirement for using its site at no charge, that might work. But GitHub's terms don't really make sense for what people are trying to do on it. GitHub only allows you to "view" and "fork".
Are users allowed to run the code? The answer appears to be "no". That's because under most countries' law, including the US, by default users have NO rights unless they are granted somehow. Heck, as far, as I can tell, users aren't even allowed to modify it, because you can make a fork without modifying it, and only "forks" are allowed. Now we have to dance on what a "fork" means, and the LAWYERS, not the programmers get to decide.
If you want to release software, and collaborate, great! Posting stuff without a license is not a release, it's a legal minefield.
If don't include a license, the LAWYERS decide what is allowed... not the programmers. You probably won't like what the lawyers decide.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
If anyone tried that where I work they'd be out so fast their head spun. Copying code for your own pet project at home is one thing (I still wouldn't do it, but at least the fall out is limited), but leaving your employer open to lawsuits is generally considered a bad idea.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
What about the WTFPL? My complaint is about software without a license. The WTFPL is a license, and it makes it clear what you can do. The problem isn't the WTFPL, it's the software without any license at all.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
You can give away whatever you want. But posting it to GitHub without a license is not giving it away, it's creating legal trap for anyone who might use it.
Part of the problem is that younger people think they're immortal. Imagine this: You write software for 4 years, posted on GitHub, with no license. Then you die in some car accident. Your estate then sues everyone who uses the software, because they have no right to use the software. They could just rewrite the software, but they're still liable for all that unauthorized use.
Look, it's clear that a lot of developers (especially younger ones) are completely ignorant about the law. But ignorance of the law is no excuse. This is how the law works, and at this point, many of these developers can no longer claim ignorance anyway. Under the law, you can give stuff away... but you have to SAY that you are giving it away.
If you don't like how the law works, then work to change it. What you want USED to be the law of the land (before 1976). But don't create new dangers for innocent third parties, that's grossly unfair to them.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Okay, so you are knowingly breaking the law. You are risking getting sued for everything you own and more. You're putting yourself, your family, your company, and your customers at risk.
No, I do not just copy, paste, compile, test, deliver, done. If it's small then fair use applies, so no problem there, but if it's larger it'd better have a license, or I'm not using it.
Why are you bringing up the WTFPL? That's a license. If you want to use that license, copy that into the LICENSE file and "git add LICENSE". Problem solved. The problem is software that does not have a license.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Great points, but a minor correction: He hasn't open sourced anything. To release something as open source, it has be released so others can LEGALLY read, use, modify, and distribute it. That's typically done by a license.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
What? Creative Commons *is* a license, including the near-public domain flavor that they seem to be refering to. If it weren't a license then permissions would fall back to the default behaviour of copyright, you have no permission to do *anything* with it, which would completely defeat the idea.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The simple fact is that the majority of accounts are just single people; sole authors. The vast majority of whose hello world programs will never gain any traction. It the least they want to know if anyone even looks at their code and said person will ask about the license if they have any intention of using it. Seems reasonable to me.
It also defers the question of which license until there are at least a couple other people willing to invest their time in the code. By choosing early you are creating more friction where a project really needs to gather developers to achieve some momentum.
Yes, but the implicit license is no license (copyright law). If you want to freak out the lawyers call it Public Domain and be done with it. Sure way to short-circuit a lawyer's brain.
It's a way to short-circuit your lawyers brain, since then you are not held harmless from damages arising from the use, misuse, or abuse of the software.
To the people who might want to use the code, their lawyers see it as a nifty scapegoat, should damages arise from use, misuse, or abuse of their product which incorporates your software. When apportioning damages to the plaintiff, should they win their case, it'd be up to your lawyers and their lawyers to argue about it, only their layers get to see your code, and your lawyers don't get to see their code.
Seriously, you can not disclaim association with the code, unless things were amended so that declaring something to be "Public Domain" transferred the liability to the public at large, and there was an implicit "hold harmless" clause for the author of the work.
So effectively, only stupid people declare things to be "in the public domain" these days.
Indeed. And in fact you indirectly raise another issue - if the "original" author is so ignorant of copyright law that they "share" their code without any licensing information, then there's a fair chance that they have themselves incorporated other people's code into their work without regard to copyright restrictions, so you may be opening yourself up to legal liability for having GPLed, "shared source", or other restrictively licensed code incorporated into your software without realising it.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Github needs to specify a "default license". If no license is specified, then XXX license applies (for example: BSD/MIT).
That may sound like imposing something on users, but remember that github give you a free account for public repositories for FLOSS stuff. If you specify no license, it's not legally propietary, so, it would make sense for them to do so.
From personal experience: patent law is international, as is a great deal of copyright law, and by ignoring licenses you leave yourself and any compuany you work for open to patent trolls for expensive lawsuits. I've had to defend my work against copyright trolls, and was very glad I'd left a clean paper trail of the licenses I worked with. It's why I strongly prefer open source software: because the source is open, so are the changes and usually the records of who contributed what.
There's plenty of good material at Wikipedia about international copyright and patent law. Start there to investigate how your reuse of other people's software, without permission or in violation of upstream licenses and patents which you never bothered to examine, can put your finances and your work at serious legal risk. It will also get your software blocked from any significant Linux or open source software distribution.
ahhh.... that explains it then. Your employer takes the risks, and your work is not really your own anyway. If you put significant energy into something that was then you wouldn't be so casual.
Oh, and if you happen to live in pretty much anywhere the USA is pressuring everyone to get their ducks in a row with their screwed up laws.
And we all do this.
No, no we don't. Just because you do, doesn't mean everyone else does as well.
Hmmm. I looked at my hammer and my axe and can't find the license.
I guess if I kill someone with them the creators are liable?
If you release it with no license at all, I don't know what the hell to do with the code. Can I have it for my program? Does your copyright trump everything. Absolutely no license is pretty much all rights reserved by default I'd suppose. No license is as bad as GPL. I don't really know what my obligations or permissions are, so I actually forego using the code. If I don't have legal right to use your code, I do not have legal right to use the code. If you don't expressly say I can, I may not be allowed to.
Using a more liberal license than GPL is great, I always do it. But, TFA says "no license" and that's a piece of crap, upload a BSD code fragment for goodness sakes, or oddly enough you completely own the code and I have no right to it at all.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
You mean that no-one who cares about licences can use the code. No openosurce project will accept the code, no distro will package it.
But there are plenty of freeloaders who might use your code in a closed source project and assume you will never notice (probably true). They probably wont even credit you.
Copyright law always apply to literary works, whether you make a statement about it or not.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Please don't license software under the Creative Commons licenses. They're not GPL compatible, and Creative Commons themselves don't recommend it. (CC0, their public domain dedication, is still OK.)
No license is as bad as GPL.
Really? I mean.... this is a seriously uninformed comment. No license is just that - no license. Just because you can see the code, does not give you permission to use it. A licence gives you permission to use it. License quite literally means permission. GPL is a licence, thus is a permission, even under strict permission.
So... GPL = permission. No license = no permission. So how are they equal?
aka release code into public domain.
It's simple, really,
Most of the kids who were born to a free software world, where access to the source is ubiquitous, don't have an idea of what a license does for them.
Never bothered to read the LICENSE files, because they all say (practically) the same thing, that they are free to improve and share. And that's what they do.
When they start their own projects, they 'default' to the same (mixed-oss/fs) license they grew up with, because that's the 'context' of the society they grew up in.
[iconv --from-code=utf-7]
If I want to write a small piece of code and wanted people to use it, you would put a license on it.
If you think your work is not worth compensating you for, you may put a BSD on it.
If you think your work is worth compensating you for it, you may put a GPL on it.
There's NOTHING viral about GPL. The viral nature IS COPYRIGHT ITSELF.
Note too the case where some dual-licensed code had some GPL work added on to it and the author who did so made the entire post-improved version GPL only, how loud did BSD trolls complain?
Funny thing is THE ORIGINAL VERSION WAS STILL AVAILABLE TO THEM.
Just like they use to defend the "you can make a derived work and take it closed, removing the freedoms". Except this case was "removing the freedom to allow removal of freedoms" and THAT then incensed the trolls.
If the poor boy had just slapped a closed source EULA on it rather than the much more permissive GPL, he'd not have been targeted by them at all.
Because the BSD trolls aren't FOR the code to be free, they're agaist the GPL.
Oh.... Really? 19 years of experience and still have to wisen up. Treating other people's work like shit is exactly how others would treat you if you were bold enough to disclose your identity.
But hey... it's fun to hide in anonymity, right?
That reply is not a reply. I can sue all across Europe for such crap.
So, when approaching a GPL author to make a deal, avoid projecting that attitude or they'll rightly invite you to fuck yourself.
In that case, what's the best way to phrase a request when trying to work around the fact that a critical mass of end users have chosen to adopt platforms with application distribution policies that are fundamentally incompatible with copyleft? The more prominent among these platforms are iOS and the major game consoles. See, for example, this story from four years ago.
If you don't want to be bothered by licensing, dedicate your stuff to the public domain.
But even if you do that, you have no entitlement to a platform on which to run a computer program that you created. The license for the system libraries of the platform for which you develop a program dictates under which terms you may distribute a program. And increasingly, such as with game consoles and iOS, the licenses for the system libraries of platforms intended for home use have become incompatible with free software licensing.
Technically, that's wrong.
No, it's not.
You can relicense a work you do not hold the copyright to, if the copyright owner had granted you that right, and only to the degree that the copyright owner allows.
And how would the copyright owner have granted you that if there is no license? Or did you not actually bother to understand the context of my answer?
This is in fact more common than you'd think, relicensing BSD code under GPL or commercial licenses happens quite often.
Yes, but the situation you speak of has no relation to the context of what is being discussed which is unlicensed works on Github where the copyright owner has not granted you ANYTHING.
That's a real license, it's just not a good one. It doesn't include the usual "no warranty" statement that protects you and your co-developers.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Provided that you have lawful access to a copy, you do not need a license [...] to watch an audiovisual work
I was under the impression that lawful possession of a copy that has been lawfully made and lawfully distributed to the public did not by itself constitute lawful access. For example, if something in a computer program's installer is encrypted, decrypting it without the copyright owner's permission would appear to constitute a violation of section 1201(a) and or 1201(b) based on how I read Universal v. Reimerdes.
if you own a copy, you do not need a license to run, backup, or make necessary modifications (for the purpose of running it) to software
It appears Nintendo would disagree with you with respect to its software distributed for its platforms. Consider the Retrode, a video game cartridge reader marketed specifically for use under the necessary modifications provision (117(a)(1)). I seem to remember a court holding that the backup provision (117(a)(2)) does not apply to ROM cartridges (Atari vs. JS&A), and I get the impression from various anti-piracy warnings published by Nintendo that Nintendo believes that the Retrode is illegal to possess because its non-infringing uses under 117(a)(1) are not substantial. Besides, section 117 appears not to apply to computer programs that form part of an audiovisual work such as a video game.
No license is needed to buy the copy
Provided that the copy is already on U.S. soil. Or how am I misinterpreting 17 USC 602?
I can place "This software is licensed under the GPL" all over my software, but that does not mean that you are free to break into my servers and copy it.
You don't have to break into anyone's servers. Any project hosted on a free GitHub account is visible to the public.
But has the WTFPL been tested in a real court by real lawyers? The GPL has, several times in fact. Judges in more than one jurisdiction have ruled that distribution of GPL software outside the terms allowed by the GPL is copyright infringement.
So you're okay with people including your code in proprietary software with nasty EULAs, but not with people including your code in GPL projects? That makes a lot of sense...
More racism from the right. Not a surprise. Never hear someone making racist comments while bashing conservatives. Telling, ain't it.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
What license is recommended for a work that contains both executable components and not-executable components, such as a video game that contains an engine and scripts (executable) and meshes, textures, maps, and audio (not executable)?
Right! Particularly, in GPL3, if he doesn't want any patents used in the software to be automatically licensed to anybody and everybody downstream w/o explicit agreements, he'd be stupid to agree to his code going into such a project. Or if he is okay w/ writing code that goes into a ROM and can't be altered, or even into a flash that's locked for warranty or other purposes.
Any copyleft licenses should be avoided like the plague, if they want to stay in business
No. Copyright forbids that.
Yes. It does. That's the law. If you use it without a license, you have infringed the author's copyright, and he/she/they/it can sue you -- for statutory damages of $150,000 per copy.
Yes. That's the law.
No. It's worse. There's nothing wrong with GPL. At least the author cared to spell out what you can and cannot do. With no license you cannot do anything at all. With the GPL, the code will be useful to anyone willing to comply with the GPL. With no license, there is nothing you can to do legally use the code.
Your obligations under copyright law are not to use someone else's code that they have not given you a license for. Your permissions are none. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
You are not allowed to. There is no 'may' or 'maybe' about it.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
> You mean that no-one who cares about licences can use the code.
It doesn't matter if you care about licenses. You cannot use the code. The copyright owner has not given you any rights to use the code. Using the code is a copyright infringement, and the author can (and might!) sue you.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
A license says what behaviors you can engage in. It is silent about behaviors you cannot engage in. Having no license means you cannot engage in any actions. Merely downloading it from GitHub without a license is copyright infringement. If thee author of the work has a log of IP addresses of downloaders he can sue for copyright infringement.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
The license doesn't restrict redistribution. Copyright law does that. The license permits redistribution, maybe, under some, any or all conditions as written in the license.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
That's like saying obeying the law is for old people. Try telling that to the judge when you get sued for copyright infringement. I'm sure it will go over well.
Yep. But that doesn't mean you can ignore it. If you don't put a license on your code, only a fool will use it. If you intend for people to freely use and redistribute your code, then SAY SO. That's what a license does. It doesn't have to be long and complex. Just copy a boilerplate BSD license and paste it liberally on your code.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
And if a lazy programmer at a commercial company puts your code in their product, how will you find out and how will you prove it? There are plenty of cases (see http://www.gpl-violations.org/about.html#history ) of companies taking code and not giving credit. Those companies can benefit from your 'unlicensed' code. But companies and groups who take licences seriously (redhat, debian, apache, google, apple etc) can't use your code. Is that what you want?
Generally I'm talking about situations where code sharing is expected. Without a licenses you can't touch that code. But, I've seen plenty of cases where the intent was that the code was suppose to be useful, but wasn't without a license. But, yeah, point taken.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
What? This is probably just trolling at this point, but I'll bite just to make sure no one things this complete FUD has any truth. I don't want to get into a discussion of which style license is better (copyleft or permissive), but releasing code under a GPL-compatible license does not affect your patent rights in any way. Take a look at the BSD licenses (they are GPL-compatible); they contain no language which would allow anyone to use your patents. If someone downstream wants to incorporate your code and put the GPL on it, they are only licensing any patents they might have.
If you don't like how the law works, then work to change it.
How would you recommend going about that when the MPAA owns the television news media through which the majority of the U.S. electorate learns about candidates?
You miss the point. It's true that copyright and license are not the same thing. But under almost every country's laws, works like software are automatically copyrighted by the creator or employer (with a few exceptions, e.g., US government employees as part of their official duties). And you cannot use copyrighted software unless (1) you're the copyright holder, or (2) you have permission from the copyright holder. A license (from the copyright holder) grants that permission.
If you don't have a license, then the lawyers and judges get to decide whether or not you had permission. And you probably won't like what they decide, because the DEFAULT is "no permission".
You can complain about a "permission-based culture". But this is law, not just amorphous culture. If you want to share, then grab an OSS license, put it in the LICENSE file, and you're done. If you want to do just about anything, the MIT is a perfect license for it; it's short, and it provides some protection from lawsuits.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Only if you can see the code. Why do you assume that they've published their code as open source when they copied it and violated the GPLv3 or other patent licenses?
But of course, 1201 prohibits decrypting the installer, not running the software, which is still permitted under 117
You need to decrypt the executable out of the installer package to get a usable copy onto a PC's primary storage before you can run anything, and "the authority of the copyright owner" under 1201 is conditioned on assent to the EULA.
if you'd like to discuss the necessity for greater consumer protection and the concordant need for abolishing that whole chapter, by all means, let's.
I think that's one of the reasons for copyleft, to make it less attractive for big developers to apply that sort of bullcrap in the first place. It's certainly why the FSF added a specific anti-WIPO-1996 provision as section 3 of the GPLv3 and transformed GPLv2's "scripts used to control [...] installation" into more explicit "Installation Information". But how would one go about pushing for repeal of a statute that has broad support among the five movie studios that control televised news in the United States?
I suggest using the Internet. I hear it's popular. What's more, over time the number of people who get news through TV will probably decrease.
But to be honest, depending on changing the law is silly. You can collaborate today, just add a license statement. Then work to change the law, arguing that the presence of all these licenses is evidence that the law's default is wrong. That way you get what you want today, and you create evidence for tomorrow.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
What's more, over time the number of people who get news through TV will probably decrease.
In practice, "over time" means "by the time you die". It'll probably take decades for the Internet-phobic generation who grew up with newspapers and TV to die off. There are a few people in my family who rely on being able to wake up in the morning and unwind after work by sitting down in a recliner with the city paper and a TV remote, who see a computer as something to be used at a desk for only a few minutes at a time at the most, such as to view and sign the guestbook of an obituary, check a bank balance, etc.
But to be honest, depending on changing the law is silly. You can collaborate today, just add a license statement.
Which I do. But a license statement doesn't protect a developer from lawsuits from third parties not participating in the collaboration, instead alleging patent infringement or copyright infringement of nonliteral elements. The court in Oracle v. Google decided one way (for uncopyrightability), but the court in Tetris v. Xio decided the other way (for copyrightability), and FSF could end up sued for what is currently distributed as a component of Emacs.
What do you mean 'is that what you want?'
If I offer open source code, I want everyone to be able to use it.
That is why I put a license on it. Without a license, anyone who uses it is infringing my copyright. I can sue them for exercising the rights that copyright gives exclusively to me and me alone.
The reason I put a license on it is to protect YOU, not to protect ME.
You ask how unlicensed use would be proven, and then you point out gpl-violations.org. But that is not precisely the same issue. What happened in the gpl-violations cases is that someone use code that DID HAVE a license, and exceeded the permissions given in that license (eg, distributing binary without also distributing source code).
'giving credit' is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with the GPL or most other open source licenses.
Companies that benefit from unlicensed code are fools as much as companies that benefit by violating the licenses of licensed code. If they get caught, the liability could be very large. But go ahead. It's your future. You can also cheat on your taxes and hope the IRS doesn't catch you. Some murderers don't get caught. Some people who exceed the speed limit don't get caught. What's your argument about that some will take unlicensed code and use it? Yep, they will, and they have a ticking time bomb in their code.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
I think you missunderstood what I was saying (or i was not clear enough) because we mostly agree.
There are low life folk who will take your code no matter what. if its a whole kernel being used in a router it might be easy to spot. If its something smaller, say a collision detection algorithm that gets put in a game, it might be very hard to spot and hard to prove.
Unlicensed code only benefits these dodgy folk, and they probably will get away with it. A clear opensource licence wont stop them (though with copyleft you can still fight them), but it means the good folk can also benefit.
Your obligations under copyright law are not to use someone else's code that they have not given you a license for. Your permissions are none. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Not true. You may use a copy of copyrighted material that you've been given. But you may not copy it, distribute copies of it, or create a modified copy of it. Just like you may read (use) a book that someone gives you a copy of -- copyright does not prevent that.
So the next question is whether the author is giving you a copy by publishing it on the Internet. I can't think of any other reason that anyone would publish something publicly on the Internet than to give you a copy to read (i.e. use), I think you'd have a hard time making an argument in court that that was not the intention.
Of course, since you're not allowed to make additional copies or modifications under copyright law, you would not be able to use the code in any other projects. So a library would not be very useful.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
People publish things on the internet all the time that are for you to read, but not make a copy of. Not even download. That has been the intention of YouTube videos for ages, you can watch, but not download. (They may have given in to reality on that one recently.)
Yes, that is a very important question.
Oh, I'm sure a copyright troll could make a lot of arguments. Let me give it a try.
* I put that up there only for people to read.
* You can't tell me what the intention was, only I can tell you what my intention was
* If you saw a photo on the New York Times website, would you just assume it was intended for you to download?
etc, etc
The time and expense of a court battle, especially against someone acting in bad faith is not worth it. That's why it is best not to touch unlicensed code with a ten foot pole.
And, as you rightly point out, without a license, even if you can make a reasonable argument for downloading it, you definitely cannot copy, modify, distribute, or incorporate it into larger works.
So although your first words to my post were "Not True", it seems in practice that what I said is in fact true. You can't do anything of consequence with the code. It is questionable whether you even have the right to download it. It is very questionable whether you have "been given" the code, just because you see it on the web somewhere. So while you can make personal use of a copyrighted item you have been given, the author might not say they gave you anything. So now we're back to your first two words you replied to me: Not True. Really?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Yes, really. There's a big difference between none/zero/zilch and even something small.
If your statement were correct, then the author of a book would be able to sell you a copy and then tell you that you're not able to read it. Or that you're not able to sell or give that copy of the book to someone else for them to read.
Whether you find those limited rights useful is another question. I might find it useful to read and understand some published code, so that I can make something similar, or something that interoperates better. That's better than nothing.
Also, your response seems to imply that I could somehow view a picture or video without having a copy of that picture or video. I can assure you that that is not the case -- all the bits have to be on my computer for my computer to be able to display it to my screen.
Anyway, my point was to be careful when talking about copyright. There are some finer points that many people don't realize, which gives the owner of a legitimate copy some rights.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.