I am a graduating senior at a large CS program at a major University. I have been a TA for numerous programming classes, and also serve in the Student Judiciary at my school, part of which covers academic dishonesty. So I think I can make a pretty informed statement on this topic, having seen many of these cases.
The bottom line is that while referencing other people's work is smart and happens in the real word, it's not as cut and dry as that. Students who don't check with a professor first before using published/available code are asking for trouble. It's been my experience that enlightened professors have no problem with using others code as long as it's documented and the professors are consulted ahead of time. But if you just assume that's fine, then you're opening yourself up to get prosecuted.
Unfortunately, the issue is not as simplistic as "research", as some might call it. In most cases, and especially at the lower levels, code is not used as a reference but as just something to copy. Think of it this way: even if you reference someone else's paper in academia, it's still not a good thing to just restate all their arguments and all their evidence. It's only research if you're building on that person's argument, not if you are restating it.
The same pretty much goes for code. Yes, some people use it legitimately. But those that really just copy it without understanding it usually outweigh the first group.
I, myself, favor no collaboration at the lower level, and then allowing it at the upper level. At the lower level, the projects are simple enough that someone has probably done something extremely similar or even the same as your project - in which case you're not learning from it. But at the upper level, when projects get far more complex, I find that students can learn from using others code, and have enough experience to do so in an effective and pedagogical manner.
One thing people don't tend to understand is that all "computer" majors are all part of the same cirriculum, really. It's really a broad spectrum.
On one extreme end, the high level end, is IS/business majors. They deal with computers in a very "interface" sort of way - they learn how to administer them, set them up, and manage them in general.
Moving down the spectrum is the Computer Science major, my personal preference. They don't deal as much interfacing with machines and programs, but deal more with writing the software that the user will see. This probably covers the biggest amount of area - some deal with the application level, while some go down to the kernel level. CS majors usually have to know about both to understand what's going, but they don't generally learn all the details of the low level hardware. Likewise, they don't bother learning how to set up an Access database - too high level.
At the lowest level are Electrical Engineering majors. From the beginning, they learn how the hardware works, with both analog and digital circuits, transistors, flip-flops, memory, etc. Nothing is really too much detail at this level - you should be able to do ASIC design of hardware by the end. Programming is not a very big part of the study here - one or two courses at most, versus a majority of courses in CS.
CE is an attempt to bridge between CS and EE. They basically take parts of both, without throwing away what's important in either (hopefully).
Why is it that the idea of a compulsory license is so ridiculous? I agree that copyright establishes ownership, but in a capitalistic sense, why would you want to hamper sales of your own product?
Yes, I agree that the artist created the music and should be able to control it. BUT, is it unreasonable to think that if he/she/they desire to publish the music, then aren't they putting it in the public domain so that it can be bought by anyone (isn't that the idea of publishing)? Should copyright enable control of the sale of the intellectual property in any form, even unaltered?
Discuss amoungst yourselves.
Slashdot Mirror
The bottom line is that while referencing other people's work is smart and happens in the real word, it's not as cut and dry as that. Students who don't check with a professor first before using published/available code are asking for trouble. It's been my experience that enlightened professors have no problem with using others code as long as it's documented and the professors are consulted ahead of time. But if you just assume that's fine, then you're opening yourself up to get prosecuted.
Unfortunately, the issue is not as simplistic as "research", as some might call it. In most cases, and especially at the lower levels, code is not used as a reference but as just something to copy. Think of it this way: even if you reference someone else's paper in academia, it's still not a good thing to just restate all their arguments and all their evidence. It's only research if you're building on that person's argument, not if you are restating it.
The same pretty much goes for code. Yes, some people use it legitimately. But those that really just copy it without understanding it usually outweigh the first group.
I, myself, favor no collaboration at the lower level, and then allowing it at the upper level. At the lower level, the projects are simple enough that someone has probably done something extremely similar or even the same as your project - in which case you're not learning from it. But at the upper level, when projects get far more complex, I find that students can learn from using others code, and have enough experience to do so in an effective and pedagogical manner.
On one extreme end, the high level end, is IS/business majors. They deal with computers in a very "interface" sort of way - they learn how to administer them, set them up, and manage them in general.
Moving down the spectrum is the Computer Science major, my personal preference. They don't deal as much interfacing with machines and programs, but deal more with writing the software that the user will see. This probably covers the biggest amount of area - some deal with the application level, while some go down to the kernel level. CS majors usually have to know about both to understand what's going, but they don't generally learn all the details of the low level hardware. Likewise, they don't bother learning how to set up an Access database - too high level.
At the lowest level are Electrical Engineering majors. From the beginning, they learn how the hardware works, with both analog and digital circuits, transistors, flip-flops, memory, etc. Nothing is really too much detail at this level - you should be able to do ASIC design of hardware by the end. Programming is not a very big part of the study here - one or two courses at most, versus a majority of courses in CS.
CE is an attempt to bridge between CS and EE. They basically take parts of both, without throwing away what's important in either (hopefully).
Hope that helps.
Yes, I agree that the artist created the music and should be able to control it. BUT, is it unreasonable to think that if he/she/they desire to publish the music, then aren't they putting it in the public domain so that it can be bought by anyone (isn't that the idea of publishing)? Should copyright enable control of the sale of the intellectual property in any form, even unaltered? Discuss amoungst yourselves.