Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote: At least partially, my confusion seems to be caused by the dichotomy of the concepts of copyright and license. How do these relate to each other? A license emerges out of the commercial domain is purely about commercial protections. I should clarify, that commercial protections here means *money*, not other potentially legal assets. As soon as money is exchange you entangle yourself with their domain. Otherwise, as long as you give credit, you're really quite safe, from a Constitutional perspective. Can you quote something regarding this? Also, preferably, can you quote something international? Because this is an international list, and an international problem. There is nothing America-specific about it. ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
At least partially, my confusion seems to be caused by the dichotomy of the concepts of copyright and license. How do these relate to each other? A license emerges out of the commercial domain is purely about commercial protections. I should clarify, that commercial protections here means *money*, not other potentially legal assets. As soon as money is exchange you entangle yourself with their domain. Otherwise, as long as you give credit, you're really quite safe, from a Constitutional perspective. -- MarkJ Tacoma, Washington -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
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 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Malte Forkel malte.for...@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 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
Can you provide any citations for your interpretation? Besides that's what the law should be, I mean. I don't think I even have to: the legal code you're citing above is not very clear, consistent, or well-defined at all. As such, it shows that this area remains an area that has yet to be worked out by all parties involved. I would happily volunteer for any interested parties to such a broken system. Alternatively, I've been working on a real fix to IP protections in the form of a unified data model for the internet and data ecosystem. Except that's now how law works in the US. All laws are unclear, inconsistent or ill-defined. Yes, but the issue is that some participants were suggesting that the law *is* clear when it is not -- so what is the procedure to follow when that is the case? Many laws even contradict existing laws. That's why there's a long history and tradition (for good or ill) of courts establishing case law to clarify and codify the implementation of law, and to resolve incompatibilities and consistencies. So while your views may be logical to you, and even common sense, unless case law backs you up, your opinions are irrelevant to the actual implementation of copyright law. No, the system of law is made for, and by the people, so while it may not reflect consensus, it isn't necessarily irrelevant and in any case where there are people spouting law as if it WAS clear, someone must do the job breaking down the walls. As much as many of us are open source or even free software advocates, we do have to live within the copyright law currently, We do not have to live within it, we can create it. Where did you get this idea? -- MarkJ Tacoma, Washington -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On 2013-06-08 22:31, Malte Forkel wrote: Hello, I have written a small utility to locate errors in regular expressions that I want to upload to PyPI. Before I do that, I would like to learn a litte more about the legal aspects of open-source software. What would be a good introductory reading? Larry Rosen's free (open source, even!) book _Open Source Licensing_ is good introductory reading. Larry is an intellectual property lawyer and helped draft the current PSF license. http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm -- Robert Kern I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. -- Umberto Eco -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On 06/10/2013 05:57 AM, Robert Kern wrote: On 2013-06-08 22:31, Malte Forkel wrote: Hello, I have written a small utility to locate errors in regular expressions that I want to upload to PyPI. Before I do that, I would like to learn a litte more about the legal aspects of open-source software. What would be a good introductory reading? Larry Rosen's free (open source, even!) book _Open Source Licensing_ is good introductory reading. Larry is an intellectual property lawyer and helped draft the current PSF license. http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm Nice, thanks for the link! -- ~Ethan~ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
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. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On 10 June 2013 17:29, llanitedave llanited...@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. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
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 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@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 GS'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 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
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. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
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 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
I have asked the PSF for help regarding the implications of the license status of code from sre_parse.py and the missing license statement in sre.py. I'll happily report their answer to the list I they don't reply in this thread. At least partially, my confusion seems to be caused by the dichotomy of the concepts of copyright and license. How do these relate to each other? I understand that I have to pick a license for my package. And may be I'm not free to pick any open source license due the license used by Secret Labs AB. But how does that relate to the copyright statements? Should I put my own copyright line in every source file in the package? How about the file that re-uses portions of sre_parse.py? Can there or should there be two copyright lines in that file, one from Secret Labs, one my own? Malte -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On 6/8/13 5:31 PM, Malte Forkel wrote: Now, how am I supposed to deal with that? Ask Secret Labs for some kind of permission? Leave it as it is and add my own copyright line? Secret Labs AB is Frederic Lundh, author of the Python Image Library and many bits included in Python's stdlib. Here is info about him: http://effbot.org/zone/about.htm His contact info is listed here: http://www.pythonware.com/company/contact.htm I have trouble believing there would be any issue with you re-using the code, especially since it is included with Python's stdlib. --Kevin -- Kevin Walzer Code by Kevin/Mobile Code by Kevin http://www.codebykevin.com http://www.wtmobilesoftware.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Malte Forkel malte.for...@berlin.de wrote: At least partially, my confusion seems to be caused by the dichotomy of the concepts of copyright and license. How do these relate to each other? Ah, that one's easy enough to answer! When you create something, you own it. That is what copyright supports. A copyright line is a declaration Hi, I created this, it's mine. (Copyright can be transferred, so the I created this part isn't always true, but the it's mine part is the point here.) Now, just as with anything else you own, you have the right to choose who uses it. I might say This is my car, but I'll let you drive it on condition you return it with a full tank of fuel. I'm not allowed to put that sort of restriction on something that isn't mine, but because it's mine, I can. The same applies to copyright; This is my software, but you're allowed to use it as long as you keep it free (that's the gist of the GPL) or This is my software; go ahead, use it, do what you like with it, only don't sue me (the MIT license) are both granting permissions on the basis of ownership. Effectively, copyright is a declaration of a closed door, and the license specifically opens it again. With something that's completely unowned (aka public domain), nobody can place any restrictions on it; otherwise, it's up to the owner to set the rules. Fortunately for the open source world, lots and LOTS of owners are prepared to give fairly generous rules regarding the use of their material! When you make a significant change to something, you have copyright in the changes. Otherwise, copyright remains with the original holder, and you should acknowledge that. So if you take one entire source file and make little or no changes to it, and then you link that with source files of your own creation, your files would have your copyright notice, and sre_parse.py would have the original copyright notice (with an annotation indicating your changes, if you've made any - see clause 3 of the original license). Things are a little messier if it's hard to distinguish your code from the rest, but sometimes you'll see copyright/license blocks saying things like This incorporates code from X and from Y and from Z, then follows up with their original copyright lines and license texts. tl;dr version: Copyright says This is mine. License says This is how you may use my stuff. ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On Sunday, June 9, 2013 8:21:43 AM UTC-5, Malte Forkel wrote: I have asked the PSF for help regarding the implications of the license status of code from sre_parse.py and the missing license statement in sre.py. I'll happily report their answer to the list I they don't reply in this thread. HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa (deep breath...) HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa I can't say much with great certainty about the leadership of this community, but what i can say for sure is they are NOT going to waste one second of their so-called precious time responding to legitimate questions (like yours). The Secret Labs license is very explicit: All rights reserved. That line means you can't touch it under pain of lawsuit. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Rick Johnson rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, June 9, 2013 8:21:43 AM UTC-5, Malte Forkel wrote: I have asked the PSF for help regarding the implications of the license status of code from sre_parse.py and the missing license statement in sre.py. I'll happily report their answer to the list I they don't reply in this thread. HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa (deep breath...) HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa I can't say much with great certainty about the leadership of this community, but what i can say for sure is they are NOT going to waste one second of their so-called precious time responding to legitimate questions (like yours). The Secret Labs license is very explicit: All rights reserved. That line means you can't touch it under pain of lawsuit. Fortunately for all of us, Rick is a troll and not a lawyer. ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 08:10:13 -0700, Rick Johnson wrote: The Secret Labs license is very explicit: All rights reserved. That line means you can't touch it under pain of lawsuit. It's also very explicit that the code can be redistributed. However, there is no explicit rights to modification granted. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
The Secret Labs license is very explicit: All rights reserved. That line means you can't touch it under pain of lawsuit. That's not true. It means whatever rights they do have, they are stating, in effect, that they have not given them away. But this is a difficult legal point, because by open sourcing their IP, they've already given away from of their rights. -- MarkJ Tacoma, Washington -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote: The Secret Labs license is very explicit: All rights reserved. That line means you can't touch it under pain of lawsuit. That's not true. It means whatever rights they do have, they are stating, in effect, that they have not given them away. But this is a difficult legal point, because by open sourcing their IP, they've already given away from of their rights. They start by reserving all rights. Then they say And you may use this, on these conditions. This is the normal order of things. The words All rights reserved don't actually add anything, now. (I'm given to understand they used to have significance, at least in some jurisdictions, but not any more.) So just Copyright date your name is sufficient. ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
At least partially, my confusion seems to be caused by the dichotomy of the concepts of copyright and license. How do these relate to each other? A license emerges out of the commercial domain is purely about commercial protections. A copyright comes from the academic domain is pure about protecting your intellectual property, or non-physical creations (most from encroachment of the commercial domain, by the way). They are on opposite ends of the spectrum, but because of our bi-polar system the terms get used as synonyms . In a way they are not related and it all depends on what court would listen to the case. In a German court, you would almost certainly be tried under the commercial framework, In the US, in theory (and this is where it must be pushed to enforce the people), it *should* be the opposite if the court is doing its job of upholding the Constitution. You use a license when you want to authorize use of something you own in a commercial setting. You use copyright when you're protecting authorship of something and have not given it away (something you never really want to do anyway). I understand that I have to pick a license for my package. You actually do not. Attaching a legal document is purely a secondary protection from those who would take away right already granted by US copyright. And may be I'm not free to pick any open source license due the license used by Secret Labs AB. But how does that relate to the copyright statements? The thing, like I noted, is that they've already released the code into the public eye. Now you must only do your due diligence to honor the *spirit* of their intent. And that spirit, regardless of whether they made it explicit, is almost certainly for non-commercial (non-profit) use. Should I put my own copyright line in every source file in the package? I would put it as a separate file in the package as well as a comment line in each file referring to your file. How about the file that re-uses portions of sre_parse.py? Can there or should there be two copyright lines in that file, one from Secret Labs, one my own? Show (c) YourName, Secret Labs and carry-forward any additional usage terms from them. -- MarkJ Tacoma, Washington -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On 06/09/2013 11:18 AM, Mark Janssen wrote: I understand that I have to pick a license for my package. You actually do not. Attaching a legal document is purely a secondary protection from those who would take away right already granted by US copyright. You are correct, except that the OP has already stated he wishes to have his code distributed. Without granting a license, the code cannot be distributed beyond the people he personally gives the code too. PyPi cannot legally allow others to download it without a license. Here's how the GPL puts it, and of course this applies to any and all licenses, even proprietary ones: However, nothing else [besides the License] grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/09/2013 11:18 AM, Mark Janssen wrote: You actually do not. Attaching a legal document is purely a secondary protection from those who would take away right already granted by US copyright. You are correct, except that the OP has already stated he wishes to have his code distributed. Without granting a license, the code cannot be distributed beyond the people he personally gives the code too. PyPi cannot legally allow others to download it without a license. 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). Re-selling for money violates fair-use, as does redistribution without preserving credit assignment (unless they've naively waived those rights away). I will have to take a look at PyPi. But if you are *publishing*, there's no court which can protect your IP afterwards from redistribution, unless you explicitly *restrict* it. In which case, if you restrict terms of re-use, you're putting the court in jeopardy because you making two actions opposed to one another. The only thing the court can easily uphold is your authorship and non-exploitation from a violation of fair-use (note again the key word is use, nor merely copying the code). But then if you waive *that* right away, you put the court in jeopardy again. Here's how the GPL puts it, and of course this applies to any and all licenses, even proprietary ones: However, nothing else [besides the License] grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying... 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. -- MarkJ Tacoma, Washington -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On 9 Jun 2013 21:39, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/09/2013 11:18 AM, Mark Janssen wrote: You actually do not. Attaching a legal document is purely a secondary protection from those who would take away right already granted by US copyright. You are correct, except that the OP has already stated he wishes to have his code distributed. Without granting a license, the code cannot be distributed beyond the people he personally gives the code too. PyPi cannot legally allow others to download it without a license. 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). Re-selling for money violates fair-use, as does redistribution without preserving credit assignment (unless they've naively waived those rights away). I will have to take a look at PyPi. But if you are *publishing*, there's no court which can protect your IP afterwards from redistribution, unless you explicitly *restrict* it. In which case, if you restrict terms of re-use, you're putting the court in jeopardy because you making two actions opposed to one another. The only thing the court can easily uphold is your authorship and non-exploitation from a violation of fair-use (note again the key word is use, nor merely copying the code). But then if you waive *that* right away, you put the court in jeopardy again. Here's how the GPL puts it, and of course this applies to any and all licenses, even proprietary ones: However, nothing else [besides the License] grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying... 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. This sort of complicated stuff is why I love the wtfpl. If it's free software, it's free to use, distribute and modify, not free under a huge amount of terms. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/09/2013 11:18 AM, Mark Janssen wrote: You actually do not. Attaching a legal document is purely a secondary protection from those who would take away right already granted by US copyright. You are correct, except that the OP has already stated he wishes to have his code distributed. Without granting a license, the code cannot be distributed beyond the people he personally gives the code too. PyPi cannot legally allow others to download it without a license. 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. Re-selling for money violates fair-use, as does redistribution without preserving credit assignment (unless they've naively waived those rights away). I will have to take a look at PyPi. But if you are *publishing*, there's no court which can protect your IP afterwards from redistribution, unless you explicitly *restrict* it. In which case, if you restrict terms of re-use, you're putting the court in jeopardy because you making two actions opposed to one another. The only thing the court can easily uphold is your authorship and non-exploitation from a violation of fair-use (note again the key word is use, nor merely copying the code). But then if you waive *that* right away, you put the court in jeopardy again. 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. You distributing copies of a commercial software to everyone is not fair use, even though you aren't making money. Here's how the GPL puts it, and of course this applies to any and all licenses, even proprietary ones: However, nothing else [besides the License] grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying... 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. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com 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). (Digression follows.) That was true back in the late 1800s in the US, but was not true in England at that time, and was solved in a unification of copyright laws and treaties. There was a huge issue over the copyright of the opera HMS Pinafore (by Gilbert and Sullivan - one of my other loves), and according to US law at the time, the publication (in this case, public performance, along with the public sale of libretti (books of the words) and some sheet music) of the work voided the authors' claim to ownership. There was no recourse against the myriad knock-off Pinafores. When the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company produced their subsequent operas, they tried a variety of techniques to secure international copyright, with limited (in many cases VERY limited) success. It wasn't till the late 20th century that the US finally signed into the international agreements that mean that we can depend on copyright protection world-wide. But we can, now. And the protection is still there even once something has been published. In fact, copyright protection still applies to works that don't have a Copyright year owner citation, though it's harder to prove then, and the lawyers would have fun with it. It's safe to assume that anything you find on the internet *is* subject to copyright, unless you have good reason to believe otherwise. Came across a nice little history of copyright here: http://www.edwardsamuels.com/illustratedstory/isc10.htm Or if you're curious about how copyright applied to the works of Gilbert and Sullivan, join Savoynet - http://savoynet.oakapplepress.com/ - and ask. There are plenty of experts around. In any case, that's all ancient history now. Unless someone can cite a jurisdiction that still maintains that publication relinquishes all rights of ownership, I would assume that things remain in copyright. ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
(Digression follows.) ...(by Gilbert and Sullivan - one of my other loves), and according to US law at the time, the publication (in this case, public performance, along with the public sale of libretti (books of the words) and some sheet music) of the work voided the authors' claim to ownership. Came across a nice little history of copyright here: http://www.edwardsamuels.com/illustratedstory/isc10.htm Or if you're curious about how copyright applied to the works of Gilbert and Sullivan, join Savoynet - http://savoynet.oakapplepress.com/ - and ask. There are plenty of experts around. Thank you for that reference. In any case, that's all ancient history now. Unless someone can cite a jurisdiction that still maintains that publication relinquishes all rights of ownership, I would assume that things remain in copyright. My apologies, if any of my writing wasn't clear. By no means did I wish to suggest that publication relinquishes copyright -- only that the author's actions eliminate some natural protections afforded by non-publication. This is just common sense. If I'm a game developer and release my game to the public, I expose it to some risk -- that just the trade-off of getting noticed. FairUse explicitly allows others to derive works from yours and you're going to have to accept that to some degree, but copyright requires that they give you credit and if they make money from your work you may be due proceeds. But here is where Lawrence Lessig is way ahead of the crowd. FairUse should mean ShareAlike. -- MarkJ Tacoma, Washington -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 13:32:00 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/09/2013 11:18 AM, Mark Janssen wrote: You actually do not. Attaching a legal document is purely a secondary protection from those who would take away right already granted by US copyright. You are correct, except that the OP has already stated he wishes to have his code distributed. Without granting a license, the code cannot be distributed beyond the people he personally gives the code too. PyPi cannot legally allow others to download it without a license. 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. Mark, ever watched TV? Or gone to the movies? Or walked into a bookshop? Listened to the radio? All these things publish copyrighted work. It is utter nonsense that merely publishing something in public gives up the monopoly privileges granted by copyright. Armchair lawyering is one thing, but please at least *try* to apply thought to these things before making ridiculous claims. If merely publishing something voided copyright monopoly, then copyright would hardly encourage people to publish things they wished to monopolise, would it? The only issue after that is fair use and that includes running the program (not merely copying the source). Running the program is irrelevant to copyright. Copyright does not grant the creator a monopoly of *running* the program. Re-selling for money violates fair-use, The principle of re-sale have nothing to do with fair use. as does redistribution without preserving credit assignment (unless they've naively waived those rights away). One cannot *naively* waive away copyright monopoly privileges. It requires an explicit and overt act to give away the rights granted. One might deliberately publish your work under a permissive licence without realising that it is permissive, but that's not an act of naivety, it's an act of stupidity for not reading the licence and understanding it before publishing. Well Your Honour, I had heard that all the cool kids were using the GPL, so I copied the GPL into my source code. I didn't realise it had legal meaning. I will have to take a look at PyPi. But if you are *publishing*, there's no court which can protect your IP afterwards from redistribution, unless you explicitly *restrict* it. When you listen to a song on the radio, do you know how they have a copyright announcer read out the copyright and explicitly list all the rights they keep after each and every song and advertisment? No, me neither. It doesn't happen. Because it's nonsense that you give up copyright by publishing. In which case, if you restrict terms of re-use, you're putting the court in jeopardy because you making two actions opposed to one another. The only thing the court can easily uphold is your authorship and non-exploitation from a violation of fair-use (note again the key word is use, nor merely copying the code). But then if you waive *that* right away, you put the court in jeopardy again. Put the court in jeopardy huh. Oh my, that's a level of embarrassment I haven't seen for a long time. Unless you are the government of the land, nothing you publish has jurisdiction over the court or can put it in jeopardy. You can publish: I hereby abolish the court, and sentence everyone involved with it to being soundly spanked on the bottom until it turns red. but it has no legal or practical standing. [...] 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. That's utter nonsense. Fair use does not give you the right to make a copy of an entire work for your own use, non-commercial or not. Fair use let's you copy a handful of pages from a book, not the entire thing. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:07:57 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com 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). (Digression follows.) That was true back in the late 1800s in the US, but was not true in England at that time, and was solved in a unification of copyright laws and treaties. There was a huge issue over the copyright of the opera HMS Pinafore No, it was not true. Mark is saying that publishing a work automatically revokes all the privileges granted by copyright, which is ridiculous. There has never been a time where copyright only applies to secret works that aren't published. The HMS Pinafore issue -- and similarly for the works of Mark Twain, and any other British author who had work published in the US -- was that their copyright in Britain was not recognised, or legally enforceable, in the USA. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On 06/09/2013 02:32 PM, Mark Janssen wrote: PyPi. But if you are *publishing*, there's no court which can protect your IP afterwards from redistribution, unless you explicitly *restrict* it. I am not a lawyer, and I haven't read the copyright act in its entirety, nor have I studied all the case law surrounding copyright, but your statement is exactly backwards of anything I've ever read on US copyright. What relevant case law supports this view? It's a very interesting opinion. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
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. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
Mark, ever watched TV? Or gone to the movies? Or walked into a bookshop? Listened to the radio? All these things publish copyrighted work. It is utter nonsense that merely publishing something in public gives up the monopoly privileges granted by copyright. That's not correct. Keep in mind, that the law is for people: there is no automatic right to profit. There certainly is no right to monopoly (which you are absurdly arguing) on *anything* released to the public. If you want that monopoly *you* have to provide the means to protect your IP. You, sir, are being ridiculous and perhaps the court along with you -- I'm just telling you what is correct. That's important. A movie producer, publishes his/her work as soon as he/she puts it on the market or otherwise releases it for public viewing. That's just the risk of doing business. Fortunately, for them, its not easy to make a verbatim copy of a film, in a theatre or otherwise. But copyright ensures that they get the credit for making the movie -- not for profit of publishing it. Now copyright includes the clause of fair-use, so that means one can make a copy of something if they aren't depriving the original creator of legitimate gains. If they are truly depriving the creator(s) of legit gains, then they are in violation. That's all the law should support. Don't think there is any law that can determine, once and for all, what counts as legitimate gains and what violates fair use. *You* have simply *sold out*. Legitimate gains is something the courts have to work out, on a case-by-case basis, but if the movie producers are that worried about losing their gains, then they can do the f-ing work and require movie goers to sign a simple clause promising that they won't try to copy the movie (on concealed cameras and such). The issue beyond that, like code, is when it comes to digital media. Because digital media allows verbatim copying and *tacitly removes* *by its nature* any privilege or monopoly on public viewing. That, again, is just the risk of doing business of trying to maximize your market for-profit. Tough nuts asshole. Things are quite clear despite the FUD the media establishment would have you believe. Stop capitulating and selling out. The only issue is whether you're depriving the original content creator of *legitimate* gains. That means many things: how much is that movie a derived product of popular culture, for example? (Did you get rewarded for participating in some small part of that?) How much would you have paid if was offered to you to set the price? Armchair lawyering is one thing, but please at least *try* to apply thought to these things before making ridiculous claims. I have, and I assure you they are not ridiculous claims. You have just been lulled into complacency, like most everyone else. That's why people like the DeCSS folks are doing the rest of us a favor. Shame on you for defending the status quo. If merely publishing something voided copyright monopoly, Here you already shown your ignorance of the concept. Copyright protects your *authorship*, not your profit. Perhaps you're confusing patent law with copyright. then copyright would hardly encourage people to publish things they wished to monopolise, would it? Why would they publish something they wished to monopolize? The only issue after that is fair use and that includes running the program (not merely copying the source). Running the program is irrelevant to copyright. Technically, the law likely recognizes the distinction from reproducing and running a program. If I am a secretary and am copying something for my boss, I'm not liable am I? But if I derive benefit from the program, I am, yes? Copyright does not grant the creator a monopoly of *running* the program. No, perhaps you are getting hung up on the misnomer of calling it copyright which would otherwise imply right to copy. Copyright, could potentially grant the creator rights (like the DMCA) to who *can* run the program. Re-selling for money violates fair-use, The principle of re-sale have nothing to do with fair use. Yes it does. You are simply wrong. The point of the law is fairness, not supporting monopolies. as does redistribution without preserving credit assignment (unless they've naively waived those rights away). One cannot *naively* waive away copyright monopoly privileges. Why not? That is what happens, generally speaking, when one releases something to the public domain, so what are you arguing? It requires an explicit and overt act to give away the rights granted. That's what i just implied by saying waived away their rights. One might deliberately publish your work under a permissive licence without realising that it is permissive, but that's not an act of naivety, it's an act of stupidity for not reading the licence and understanding it before publishing. Well, that's what the court is for, to decide whether an
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark, ever watched TV? Or gone to the movies? Or walked into a bookshop? Listened to the radio? All these things publish copyrighted work. It is utter nonsense that merely publishing something in public gives up the monopoly privileges granted by copyright. That's not correct. Keep in mind, that the law is for people: there is no automatic right to profit. There certainly is no right to monopoly (which you are absurdly arguing) on *anything* released to the public. If you want that monopoly *you* have to provide the means to protect your IP. You, sir, are being ridiculous and perhaps the court along with you -- I'm just telling you what is correct. That's important. A movie producer, publishes his/her work as soon as he/she puts it on the market or otherwise releases it for public viewing. That's just the risk of doing business. Fortunately, for them, its not easy to make a verbatim copy of a film, in a theatre or otherwise. But copyright ensures that they get the credit for making the movie -- not for profit of publishing it. Now copyright includes the clause of fair-use, so that means one can make a copy of something if they aren't depriving the original creator of legitimate gains. If they are truly depriving the creator(s) of legit gains, then they are in violation. That's all the law should support. Don't think there is any law that can determine, once and for all, what counts as legitimate gains and what violates fair use. *You* have simply *sold out*. Legitimate gains is something the courts have to work out, on a case-by-case basis, but if the movie producers are that worried about losing their gains, then they can do the f-ing work and require movie goers to sign a simple clause promising that they won't try to copy the movie (on concealed cameras and such). The fact that a work is non commercial is one of several factors that is taken into account when determining fair use. It is not an automatic fair use for non-commercial works. I have no idea where your understanding of copyright law came from, but here is the relevant section of the US legal code: 17 USC § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. Can you provide any citations for your interpretation? Besides that's what the law should be, I mean. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
The fact that a work is non commercial is one of several factors that is taken into account when determining fair use. It is not an automatic fair use for non-commercial works. I have no idea where your understanding of copyright law came from, but here is the relevant section of the US legal code: Thanks for digging out the legal code. Upon reading, it is stunningly clear that the legal system has not established a solid framework or arching philosophy in which to contain and express the desire (in law) to protect content creators of all kinds or the general public with the fair use of such works and has been running on the sheer confidence of the American spirit, however facile or misdirected that may be. 17 USC § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. Can you provide any citations for your interpretation? Besides that's what the law should be, I mean. I don't think I even have to: the legal code you're citing above is not very clear, consistent, or well-defined at all. As such, it shows that this area remains an area that has yet to be worked out by all parties involved. I would happily volunteer for any interested parties to such a broken system. Alternatively, I've been working on a real fix to IP protections in the form of a unified data model for the internet and data ecosystem. -- MarkJ Tacoma, Washington -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On 2013-06-09 19:30, Mark Janssen wrote: Thanks for digging out the legal code. Upon reading, it is stunningly clear that the legal system has not established a solid framework or arching philosophy in which to contain and express the desire (in law) to protect content creators of all kinds or the general public with the fair use of such works and has been running on the sheer confidence of the American spirit, however facile or misdirected that may be. What is clear is the mandate that sets up the framework in the first place: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries -- USC Article I, Section 8 If it doesn't promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, then it misses the spirit of the law as drafted. Granted, courts seem to miss that interpretation on a regular basis, leaving me a bit disgusted at the whole mess. :-/ -tkc -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
What is clear is the mandate that sets up the framework in the first place: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries -- USC Article I, Section 8 If it doesn't promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, then it misses the spirit of the law as drafted. Exactly, academia has known what this is intuitively for some time. It's just the commercial world and the populace at large that is confused and exploited. This also disproves Steven D'Aprano's thesis that monopoly rights is its purpose, but no. Granted, courts seem to miss that interpretation on a regular basis, leaving me a bit disgusted at the whole mess. :-/ Yeah, and stranger is that people *defend* the interpretation which *takes away* their rights! Bizarre! -- MarkJ Tacoma, Washington -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On 06/09/2013 08:30 PM, Mark Janssen wrote: Can you provide any citations for your interpretation? Besides that's what the law should be, I mean. I don't think I even have to: the legal code you're citing above is not very clear, consistent, or well-defined at all. As such, it shows that this area remains an area that has yet to be worked out by all parties involved. I would happily volunteer for any interested parties to such a broken system. Alternatively, I've been working on a real fix to IP protections in the form of a unified data model for the internet and data ecosystem. Except that's now how law works in the US. All laws are unclear, inconsistent or ill-defined. Many laws even contradict existing laws. That's why there's a long history and tradition (for good or ill) of courts establishing case law to clarify and codify the implementation of law, and to resolve incompatibilities and consistencies. So while your views may be logical to you, and even common sense, unless case law backs you up, your opinions are irrelevant to the actual implementation of copyright law. As much as many of us are open source or even free software advocates, we do have to live within the copyright law currently, and use (or exploit) it to our benefit and to preserve our rights. Meaning if I as a developer produce code, and if I wish this code to be of use to others while still protecting my own rights under copyright law, I have to adopt a suitable distribution license. And if I use existing code that is already under license, I have to take that into consideration. It's not fair use. It's code license. That is why this issue does matter, and why the original poster asked his questions in the first place. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote: On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:07:57 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com 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). (Digression follows.) That was true back in the late 1800s in the US, but was not true in England at that time, and was solved in a unification of copyright laws and treaties. There was a huge issue over the copyright of the opera HMS Pinafore No, it was not true. Mark is saying that publishing a work automatically revokes all the privileges granted by copyright, which is ridiculous. There has never been a time where copyright only applies to secret works that aren't published. The HMS Pinafore issue -- and similarly for the works of Mark Twain, and any other British author who had work published in the US -- was that their copyright in Britain was not recognised, or legally enforceable, in the USA. It was partly that, but there were also aspects of you've published the vocal score, ergo you can't claim copyright on the opera. This, incidentally, ignored the fact that the *orchestrations* are a huge part of the quality of the show (you can't just take the piano/vocal reduction and perfectly recreate the magnificent sound of the orchestra), but the courts can't be expected to be artistic! Granted, IANAL, but the scholarly article I linked to above refers to several of the same issues. I don't know about publication revoking *all rights*, but there was definitely an understanding by the court that publication meant a reduction of copyright claim. ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
Granted, IANAL, but the scholarly article I linked to above refers to several of the same issues. I don't know about publication revoking *all rights*, but there was definitely an understanding by the court that publication meant a reduction of copyright claim. Again, I don't think I said that publication revokes all rights, but it certainly opens the can of worms that wouldn't have been open had you kept it to yourself. So while it *exposes you*, it does not still *deprive you of rights*. That is what copyright is for: to protect you after you've exposed yourself. -- MarkJ Tacoma, Washington -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On Sunday, June 9, 2013 7:26:43 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote: When you listen to a song on the radio, do you know how they have a copyright announcer read out the copyright and explicitly list all the rights they keep after each and every song and advertisment? No, me neither. It doesn't happen. Because it's nonsense that you give up copyright by publishing. The fact that media distributors think they can control source files in this day and age is just wishful thinking and even more foolish than the ongoing (and fruitless) two decade long war on drugs. I can't decide which is worse: circumventing evolution for the sake of greed OR for the sake of blind altruism. [Tangential Meandering Ahead] What these pseudo moral fools fail to realize is that a certain segment of any group is doomed to failure. This is not my law, this is the law of the universe in which we live. But Rick you're heartless. What of the children? If we legalize drugs then kids will be addicts, some will even die! How many are dying now in the streets from gangland shootouts? How many lives are being ruined and minds are being brainwashed by the highly repetitive music spewing hateful lyrics, indoctrinating another generation into the dead-end thug lifestyle? By fighting a losing war to protect degenerates from themselves, we actually elevate the thug and destroy the collective well-being of all humanity. Let the drug addicts and alcoholics self-destruct! Put the thugs out of business by legalizing drugs and you take away their easy source of profit. Take away the profit and you reduce the influence of these punks over the minds of children. Take away the influence, and you break the cycle of a thug lifestyle. Only logic can only undo what decades of bleeding heart policies have utterly destroyed. Instead of wasting time saving people who are lost, you should focus your time (and money) on people who have a future, people who can be productive members of society, people who have a true moral compass. How many innocent people have to die before you idiot pseudo moralist realize that restricting personal choices is a lost cause? But more importantly, when are you going to realize that the blood of all the innocent lives lost is on your hands! But i digress... [Back on topic of Copyright/license Issues] Maintaining an ownership of Yes, that was my idea and i should benefit from my idea for a limited amount of time is great, but thinking you can squeeze every penny out of an idea to very detriment of our collective evolution is nothing less than a crime against humanity! (-- that was NOT an exaggeration!) In the 80's huge record companies bilked consumers and artists for hundreds of millions of dollars. They had their day in the sun. But every good ponzie scheme comes to an end. Maybe i'll go cry in the corner for the corporate suits, or maybe not! The real losers where the artist who forfeited an egregious percentage of their potential earnings so the corporate suits could buy another jet or another summer home to impress their shallow friends. But this whole idea of i was first so you're not allowed is just nonsense. If someone can reproduce your work, then it must not have been much of a leap in the first place. Instead of squalling over who owns an idea (like two children fighting over a toy)try to inject uniqueness into your interpretation of the idea to make it your very own. If you're an inventor, artist, musician, programmer, scientist, etc... your focus should be on creating the best idea you possibly can. If the thought of someone imitating or copying your idea keeps you awake at night, then don't release your idea to the public. In this day and age of the information revolution, any attempt to stop the propagation of your idea is foolish. Just as foolish as thinking that outlawing guns will end murder, or that some illogical war on drugs will ever be won, or that seat-belt laws exist because your government cares about your well-being -- Oh gawd your a bunch of idiots! Authoritarian policies create side effects that are far worse than the miniscule problems the policies attempted to solve. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
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 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re-using copyrighted code
Hello, I have written a small utility to locate errors in regular expressions that I want to upload to PyPI. Before I do that, I would like to learn a litte more about the legal aspects of open-source software. What would be a good introductory reading? Plus, I have one very specific question: In my package, I use modified code from sre_parse.py, which is part of the Python release. That file has the following header: # # Secret Labs' Regular Expression Engine # # convert re-style regular expression to sre pattern # # Copyright (c) 1998-2001 by Secret Labs AB. All rights reserved. # # See the sre.py file for information on usage and redistribution. # The referenced information is missing in the version of sre.py that comes with current versions of Python, but I found it in the archive http://effbot.org/media/downloads/sre-2.2.1.zip. It reads: # # Secret Labs' Regular Expression Engine # # re-compatible interface for the sre matching engine # # Copyright (c) 1998-2001 by Secret Labs AB. All rights reserved. # # This version of the SRE library can be redistributed under CNRI's # Python 1.6 license. For any other use, please contact Secret Labs # AB (i...@pythonware.com). # # Portions of this engine have been developed in cooperation with # CNRI. Hewlett-Packard provided funding for 1.6 integration and # other compatibility work. # Now, how am I supposed to deal with that? Ask Secret Labs for some kind of permission? Leave it as it is and add my own copyright line? Malte -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On 2013.06.08 16:31, Malte Forkel wrote: Hello, I have written a small utility to locate errors in regular expressions that I want to upload to PyPI. Before I do that, I would like to learn a litte more about the legal aspects of open-source software. What would be a good introductory reading? The exact license terms. We might be able to help if you tell us which part(s) of the license you don't understand. There are some nice articles on many of the more common licenses on Wikipedia as well if you want a broader understanding. Open-source only implies that the source code is available. What one is allowed to actually do with the code will vary by project/author. Now, how am I supposed to deal with that? Ask Secret Labs for some kind of permission? Leave it as it is and add my own copyright line? If you can't find the license, I'd suggest sending an email to that address asking for a copy. -- CPython 3.3.2 | Windows NT 6.2.9200 / FreeBSD 9.1 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Malte Forkel malte.for...@berlin.de wrote: Hello, I have written a small utility to locate errors in regular expressions that I want to upload to PyPI. Before I do that, I would like to learn a litte more about the legal aspects of open-source software. What would be a good introductory reading? Plus, I have one very specific question: In my package, I use modified code from sre_parse.py, which is part of the Python release. That file has the following header: # # Secret Labs' Regular Expression Engine # # convert re-style regular expression to sre pattern # # Copyright (c) 1998-2001 by Secret Labs AB. All rights reserved. # # See the sre.py file for information on usage and redistribution. # The referenced information is missing in the version of sre.py that comes with current versions of Python, but I found it in the archive http://effbot.org/media/downloads/sre-2.2.1.zip. It reads: # # Secret Labs' Regular Expression Engine # # re-compatible interface for the sre matching engine # # Copyright (c) 1998-2001 by Secret Labs AB. All rights reserved. # # This version of the SRE library can be redistributed under CNRI's # Python 1.6 license. For any other use, please contact Secret Labs # AB (i...@pythonware.com). # # Portions of this engine have been developed in cooperation with # CNRI. Hewlett-Packard provided funding for 1.6 integration and # other compatibility work. # Now, how am I supposed to deal with that? Ask Secret Labs for some kind of permission? Leave it as it is and add my own copyright line? Malte You can find the license terms for all versions of Python at http://docs.python.org/3/license.html I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like you just need to include the copyright statement. I'm not sure why the sre stuff is still licensed under the 1.6 license. Did no one get permission to distribute it under the PSF license, or did no one bother to rewrite the comment in the file? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Malte Forkel malte.for...@berlin.de wrote: # This version of the SRE library can be redistributed under CNRI's # Python 1.6 license. For any other use, please contact Secret Labs # AB (i...@pythonware.com). I presume that's referring to this: http://www.handle.net/python_licenses/python1.6_9-5-00.html http://www.python.org/download/releases/1.6/license_faq/ This is looking like a hairy mess. I would recommend seeking an alternative to this code that's under a simpler license. One unfortunate consequence of license proliferation is that it's harder for code to be reused. For your own code, please use one of the better-known licenses - MIT, GPL, etc - as it will make life ever so much easier for the next person! Alternatively, since this is something that's still in current Python releases (at least, that's how I understand your opening paragraphs), this could be something to take up with the Python dev/legal team. You may be able to use it under the terms of the modern Python license: http://docs.python.org/3.3/license.html But before you publish, I'd look for an authoritative answer from someone in the PSF (which may involve a source-file edit to update the license annotation). ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On 2013.06.08 17:09, Benjamin Kaplan wrote: On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Malte Forkel malte.for...@berlin.de wrote: # This version of the SRE library can be redistributed under CNRI's # Python 1.6 license. For any other use, please contact Secret Labs # AB (i...@pythonware.com). # # Portions of this engine have been developed in cooperation with # CNRI. Hewlett-Packard provided funding for 1.6 integration and # other compatibility work. # Now, how am I supposed to deal with that? Ask Secret Labs for some kind of permission? Leave it as it is and add my own copyright line? Malte You can find the license terms for all versions of Python at http://docs.python.org/3/license.html I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like you just need to include the copyright statement. I misread that bit, having forgotten that Python was not always under the PSF. To the OP: this is a pretty permissive license, but, as noted in the FAQ that Chris linked, there could be a problem if you wish to license your work under the GPL since the CNRI license specifies a jurisdiction. -- CPython 3.3.2 | Windows NT 6.2.9200 / FreeBSD 9.1 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
I can't tell you as a lawyer, but I can tell you that regarding code for non-commercial use, the only supportable case is requiring fair-credit assignment. If reading the original license (which you are obligated to do if you re-use and re-distribute the code), it stipulates that you must re-share accordingly, then you should, otherwise there's very little case that could be brought about if the code was put into a published, open-source project, whatever the license. mark On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Malte Forkel malte.for...@berlin.de wrote: Hello, I have written a small utility to locate errors in regular expressions that I want to upload to PyPI. Before I do that, I would like to learn a litte more about the legal aspects of open-source software. What would be a good introductory reading? Plus, I have one very specific question: In my package, I use modified code from sre_parse.py, which is part of the Python release. That file has the following header: # # Secret Labs' Regular Expression Engine # # convert re-style regular expression to sre pattern # # Copyright (c) 1998-2001 by Secret Labs AB. All rights reserved. # # See the sre.py file for information on usage and redistribution. # The referenced information is missing in the version of sre.py that comes with current versions of Python, but I found it in the archive http://effbot.org/media/downloads/sre-2.2.1.zip. It reads: # # Secret Labs' Regular Expression Engine # # re-compatible interface for the sre matching engine # # Copyright (c) 1998-2001 by Secret Labs AB. All rights reserved. # # This version of the SRE library can be redistributed under CNRI's # Python 1.6 license. For any other use, please contact Secret Labs # AB (i...@pythonware.com). # # Portions of this engine have been developed in cooperation with # CNRI. Hewlett-Packard provided funding for 1.6 integration and # other compatibility work. # Now, how am I supposed to deal with that? Ask Secret Labs for some kind of permission? Leave it as it is and add my own copyright line? Malte -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- MarkJ Tacoma, Washington -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Re-using copyrighted code
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 23:31:10 +0200, Malte Forkel wrote: Hello, I have written a small utility to locate errors in regular expressions that I want to upload to PyPI. Before I do that, I would like to learn a litte more about the legal aspects of open-source software. What would be a good introductory reading? *shrug* I don't know of any good introductory reading for software licences. But have you tried googling for information about open source software licences, copyright, infringement, fair use, etc.? You can also start here: http://opensource.org/licenses/ http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonSoftwareFoundationLicenseFaq http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596005818.do Plus, I have one very specific question: In my package, I use modified code from sre_parse.py, which is part of the Python release. That file has the following header: # # Secret Labs' Regular Expression Engine # # convert re-style regular expression to sre pattern # # Copyright (c) 1998-2001 by Secret Labs AB. All rights reserved. # # See the sre.py file for information on usage and redistribution. # The referenced information is missing in the version of sre.py that comes with current versions of Python, That's a bug then. It should be reported to the bug tracker. but I found it in the archive http://effbot.org/media/downloads/sre-2.2.1.zip. It reads: # # Secret Labs' Regular Expression Engine # # re-compatible interface for the sre matching engine # # Copyright (c) 1998-2001 by Secret Labs AB. All rights reserved. # # This version of the SRE library can be redistributed under CNRI's # Python 1.6 license. For any other use, please contact Secret Labs # AB (i...@pythonware.com). # # Portions of this engine have been developed in cooperation with # CNRI. Hewlett-Packard provided funding for 1.6 integration and # other compatibility work. # Now, how am I supposed to deal with that? Ask Secret Labs for some kind of permission? Leave it as it is and add my own copyright line? Does Secret Labs even still exist? Try contacting them and see if they respond. I am not a lawyer, and I don't mean to imply that you should ignore or pay no attention to the existing licence, but I wouldn't sweat this too much. I expect that since the code is published under an open source licence, the intent is to allow you to re-use the code (provided you too use a compatible open source licence). That being the case, so long as you too keep the same intent, you won't get into trouble for minor licencing errors. The worst that may happen is that you'll be told to change your licence to match what it should be. (That's the beauty of the FOSS community -- so long as everyone works in good faith, minor errors in licencing are treated as bugs to be fixed, not infringements to pursue for profit.) Give credit to where you are copying the code from, and use a licence that is compatible. Don't try to give away rights that they don't give away, don't try to hold rights that they give away, and you're already 90% of the way there. And of course, it goes without saying, if in doubt, consult a lawyer with experience in software licensing and copyright, especially open source licensing. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
