> On what law could anyone be able to sue me for damage . ..
> even if I did, I would not be directly liable for damage caused in case I had made that mistake.
A lawsuit is always a risk. Do you want one or would you rather avoid one?
Even if you put a disclaimer on your code, you might get sued, even if you win. But you can probably make the lawsuit very short lived, even ending it in your very first reply to the complaint by producing the disclaimer that the user was required to agree to as part of a license to use your code. Furthermore, if you had a disclaimer, you could sue to recover costs of your defense and your time spent.
I don't put a license on my code to protect me. I put a license on my code to protect you.
Licenses are for old people.
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.
The system is broken.
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.
My personal interpretation is that any project on GitHub that has no explicit license is covered under a very permissive BSD-style license (without any attribution requirements).
Suppose the author has a different interpretation and sues over it?
Even if you won, is the time and expense of a lawsuit worth it?
A license would have tilted everything in your favor. There is no question of interpretation (unless you use a poorly written license -- dont!). If you were sued, the license is your defense, and you can sue to recover costs. The mere act of putting a license on the code indicates good intent of the author not to sue.
I don't put a license on my code to protect me I put a license on my code to protect you.
Software can be released without any license at all (there is no obligation that it be licensed), and can be used by anyone who uses a lawfully made copy. This use includes modifying it for compatibility purposes, making copies necessary for running it (eg copying it into RAM), and making backups. Check out 17 USC 106, 109, and in particular 117 on this.
Those uses you speak of (modifying for compatibility, making copies, running, loading, etc) are preconditioned on having a lawful copy. If you don't have a license to begin with, then the act of downloading it was unlawful. Nothing gives you the rights except a license. No rights is the default without a license. Now there is fair use, such as for news reporting, instructional use, criticism, etc. But none of those uses would seem to be exercised by using the code as part of your larger software project.
If you found a Justin Bieber song on GitHub, or on The Pirate Bay, would you just assume you can download it because it is there? This is, of course, a purely hypothetical concern, because nobody in their right mind would download a Justin Bieber song.
The presence or absence of a disclaimer doesn't determine whether or not the software author or distributor is liable for any damages.
You may not be liable. But you might be named in a lawsuit. Having a disclaimer of liability is a good possible defense. Having no such disclaimer is one less defense you have. Not putting in a disclaimer doesn't mean you won't be named. If something big and bad happens, someone suing might name everyone they can possibly name because they want to be sure they are including the responsible party. Non responsible parties will get dismissed from the suit as the prove to the court that they should not have been a party to the suit. (It may not be nice, but that is how it can work out.)
Restricting redistribution via your license is probably the most laughable honor system
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.
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.
Nobody wants your software. So you might as well release it totally unencumbered.
Wow, what fantastical fantasy world do you live in where public domain is default? Can I come live there too? Please! What color are the horns of the unicorns? I am anxiously awaiting your reply. (jumping up and down and quivering with excitement)
How does a license help that? [copyright troll comes calling]
If someone comes copyright trolling over some code you used from GitHub, they must show (A) that they are the copyright owner of the code, and (B) that you used the code.
A license is your defense that you had permission to use the code. Now you can sue and recover the costs of your defense.
Oh, wait. You don't have a license. Then you ARE guilty of copyright infringement. Statutory damages of $150,000 per copy is entered for the plaintiff. It is so ordered. Next case.
I make the observation quite frequently that people who complain about the GPL never seems to realize that you can just contact the original developer and negotiate with him a different license.
Only if we are talking about a developer, not developers plural. Maybe thousands or tens of thousands plural. Maybe some of them are even dead.
Obscurity is fine. But Security should not depend upon the Obscurity. A once Obscure system should remain Secure even if it is no longer Obscure (eg, if how it works becomes widely known). Therefore the Security did not depend upon the Obscurity.
When people say Security through Obscurity, they mean precisely the opposite. That the security depends upon you now knowing the mechanism.
> 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.
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?
No. Copyright forbids that.
Does your copyright trump everything.
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.
Absolutely no license is pretty much all rights reserved by default I'd suppose.
Yes. That's the law.
No license is as bad as GPL.
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.
I don't really know what my obligations or permissions are,
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.
If you don't expressly say I can, I may not be allowed to.
You are not allowed to. There is no 'may' or 'maybe' about it.
Yes, I meant Microsoft SQL Server. Not because I think it is the only one. Not because I think it is best (or even better than the worst). But because the context of the question was about Microsoft's brand of SQL Server. If you want to blame anyone, then blame Microsoft not me. I did not choose to give product names like:
Word -- for a word processor
Windows -- for a user interface with Windows bolted on top of MS-DOS
SQL Server -- for a sql server
Office -- for an office software package
Maybe someone could challenge the SQL Server trademark the way Lindows challenged the Windows trademark when Microsoft started threatening over trademark. Then Microsoft said "nevermind" and paid Lindows $20 Million in order to change its name to Linspire and let's all be friends and not challenge the Windows trademark because it is so strong it would never be rejected upon reexamination.
> bring back windows for workgroups... how slick would that be on today's hardware:)
Um, Microsoft did better than that.
Ever hear the phrase "kill two birds with one stone" ?
That is a statement of efficiency.
Inspired, Microsoft created Windows 8. It's new interface kills desktop computing, while its requirement of a keyboard kills tablet computing.
So now why would you want WfWg again? That OS was written in a past millennium long ago swept away in the sands of time before Microsoft had compensated for the performance improvements that Intel kept successively adding.
> what else do you need to know for database maintenance?
Learn to create and edit maintenance plans. You can do it using SQL Server Mangler Studio connected to a real SQL Server. I do not believe you can create maintenance plans on SQL Server Express.
The real growth in market share is Android. Did you / he see the article and that chart, especially the trajectories of both Windows and Android? Don't look just at where the lines are on that chart, look at the trajectories and see if you can imagine that might happen in the not very distant future. C'mon, it doesn't even take a leap of imagination.
You are basically arguing that it will succeed as it becomes popular. Hence, you must concede the point that it must become popular to succeed.
Did you read the article. Did you look at those numbers. Did you see the downward trajectory of Windows and the upward trajectory of Android? Do you think those lines portend any meaningful change in the future?
Just hit the snooze button. I'll wake you up once the paradigm shift has occurred.
It's like people thinking the automobile would never displace the beautiful horse and carriage. Autos are noisy, smelly, unreliable, difficult to start, and worse of all, they frighten the horses. Despite gradual change, there will never come a point where autos will take over horses and buggies.
Only a few select Google higher-ups know the real numbers and stop anyone else from revealing them under the threat of legal action because they know revealing them will hurt Google. Gah, you're dumb.
I could claim any kind of evil conspiracy is hiding something. No proof is required. Let's try an example:
Only a select few Microsoft higher-ups know the real truth about how much alien technology Microsoft is using to read people's brainwaves, and they stop anyone from revealing those facts under the threat of legal action because they know revealing them will hurt Microsoft. Gah, you're dumb.
Your entire posts seems to say: People have claimed Microsoft is threatened before. But despite that recently, increasingly, and in particular, the evidence provided in this article, I don't believe conditions will ever change*. People are comfortable with how things are and will never change**. As for those noisy smelly automobiles, they are faster than horses, but that's all. Trying to do serious travel is nothing like using the reliable horse and buggy. Can the automobile replace the horse and buggy? Maybe, and I sure hope it happens. But they aren't there yet -- and therefore they never will be. If it wasn't true last time and the time before that, then it never will be true. Ever.
*See: dinosaurs/tarpits, global warming, microcomputers will never dominate mainframes. **See: noisy, smelly, difficult to start, unreliable automobiles will never replace the beautiful horse and buggy.
Slashdot Mirror
> On what law could anyone be able to sue me for damage . . .
> even if I did, I would not be directly liable for damage caused in case I had made that mistake.
A lawsuit is always a risk. Do you want one or would you rather avoid one?
Even if you put a disclaimer on your code, you might get sued, even if you win. But you can probably make the lawsuit very short lived, even ending it in your very first reply to the complaint by producing the disclaimer that the user was required to agree to as part of a license to use your code. Furthermore, if you had a disclaimer, you could sue to recover costs of your defense and your time spent.
If that's how you want the course of your life to go.
Wouldn't just be simpler to put a license on your code, and to only use code that has a license?
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.
Not even download it.
Suppose the author has a different interpretation and sues over it?
Even if you won, is the time and expense of a lawsuit worth it?
A license would have tilted everything in your favor. There is no question of interpretation (unless you use a poorly written license -- dont!). If you were sued, the license is your defense, and you can sue to recover costs. The mere act of putting a license on the code indicates good intent of the author not to sue.
I don't put a license on my code to protect me I put a license on my code to protect you.
Those uses you speak of (modifying for compatibility, making copies, running, loading, etc) are preconditioned on having a lawful copy. If you don't have a license to begin with, then the act of downloading it was unlawful. Nothing gives you the rights except a license. No rights is the default without a license. Now there is fair use, such as for news reporting, instructional use, criticism, etc. But none of those uses would seem to be exercised by using the code as part of your larger software project.
If you found a Justin Bieber song on GitHub, or on The Pirate Bay, would you just assume you can download it because it is there? This is, of course, a purely hypothetical concern, because nobody in their right mind would download a Justin Bieber song.
You may not be liable. But you might be named in a lawsuit. Having a disclaimer of liability is a good possible defense. Having no such disclaimer is one less defense you have. Not putting in a disclaimer doesn't mean you won't be named. If something big and bad happens, someone suing might name everyone they can possibly name because they want to be sure they are including the responsible party. Non responsible parties will get dismissed from the suit as the prove to the court that they should not have been a party to the suit. (It may not be nice, but that is how it can work out.)
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.
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.
Wow, what fantastical fantasy world do you live in where public domain is default? Can I come live there too? Please! What color are the horns of the unicorns? I am anxiously awaiting your reply. (jumping up and down and quivering with excitement)
If someone comes copyright trolling over some code you used from GitHub, they must show (A) that they are the copyright owner of the code, and (B) that you used the code.
A license is your defense that you had permission to use the code. Now you can sue and recover the costs of your defense.
Oh, wait. You don't have a license. Then you ARE guilty of copyright infringement. Statutory damages of $150,000 per copy is entered for the plaintiff. It is so ordered. Next case.
Only if we are talking about a developer, not developers plural. Maybe thousands or tens of thousands plural. Maybe some of them are even dead.
Obscurity is fine. But Security should not depend upon the Obscurity. A once Obscure system should remain Secure even if it is no longer Obscure (eg, if how it works becomes widely known). Therefore the Security did not depend upon the Obscurity.
When people say Security through Obscurity, they mean precisely the opposite. That the security depends upon you now knowing the mechanism.
> 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.
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.
Maybe someone could challenge the SQL Server trademark the way Lindows challenged the Windows trademark when Microsoft started threatening over trademark. Then Microsoft said "nevermind" and paid Lindows $20 Million in order to change its name to Linspire and let's all be friends and not challenge the Windows trademark because it is so strong it would never be rejected upon reexamination.
> > bring back windows for workgroups... how slick would that be on today's hardware :)
> Slick? It'd still suck just as bad, but 20 times as fast!
Even sucking badly, done twenty times as fast can make it good.
The biggest problem as I see it would be lack of driver support for modern hardware.
> bring back windows for workgroups... how slick would that be on today's hardware :)
Um, Microsoft did better than that.
Ever hear the phrase "kill two birds with one stone" ?
That is a statement of efficiency.
Inspired, Microsoft created Windows 8. It's new interface kills desktop computing, while its requirement of a keyboard kills tablet computing.
So now why would you want WfWg again? That OS was written in a past millennium long ago swept away in the sands of time before Microsoft had compensated for the performance improvements that Intel kept successively adding.
> kde is fatware... always has been
One man's "bloat" is another man's features, components, extensions, and customizability.
> what else do you need to know for database maintenance?
Learn to create and edit maintenance plans. You can do it using SQL Server Mangler Studio connected to a real SQL Server. I do not believe you can create maintenance plans on SQL Server Express.
The real growth in market share is Android. Did you / he see the article and that chart, especially the trajectories of both Windows and Android? Don't look just at where the lines are on that chart, look at the trajectories and see if you can imagine that might happen in the not very distant future. C'mon, it doesn't even take a leap of imagination.
Did you read the article. Did you look at those numbers. Did you see the downward trajectory of Windows and the upward trajectory of Android? Do you think those lines portend any meaningful change in the future?
Just hit the snooze button. I'll wake you up once the paradigm shift has occurred.
It's like people thinking the automobile would never displace the beautiful horse and carriage. Autos are noisy, smelly, unreliable, difficult to start, and worse of all, they frighten the horses. Despite gradual change, there will never come a point where autos will take over horses and buggies.
I could claim any kind of evil conspiracy is hiding something. No proof is required. Let's try an example:
Only a select few Microsoft higher-ups know the real truth about how much alien technology Microsoft is using to read people's brainwaves, and they stop anyone from revealing those facts under the threat of legal action because they know revealing them will hurt Microsoft. Gah, you're dumb.
Please, oh please God, let Ballmer remain in control of Microsoft until controlled flight into terrain.
Your entire posts seems to say: People have claimed Microsoft is threatened before. But despite that recently, increasingly, and in particular, the evidence provided in this article, I don't believe conditions will ever change*. People are comfortable with how things are and will never change**. As for those noisy smelly automobiles, they are faster than horses, but that's all. Trying to do serious travel is nothing like using the reliable horse and buggy. Can the automobile replace the horse and buggy? Maybe, and I sure hope it happens. But they aren't there yet -- and therefore they never will be. If it wasn't true last time and the time before that, then it never will be true. Ever.
*See: dinosaurs/tarpits, global warming, microcomputers will never dominate mainframes.
**See: noisy, smelly, difficult to start, unreliable automobiles will never replace the beautiful horse and buggy.