Re: use of the kernel and licensing
snip How do you explain all the forks of UNIX each claiming their own copyright. They all provide the same concept, use the same names for their commands, use the same programming language, have a filesystem as their base. Just where is the line drawn between a fork and a rewrite? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: use of the kernel and licensing
Hi, On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:26:15 -0400 Joe fb...@a1poweruser.com wrote: snip How do you explain all the forks of UNIX each claiming their own copyright. They all provide the same concept, use the same names for their commands, use the same programming language, have a filesystem as their base. Just where is the line drawn between a fork and a rewrite? just go back in history and find out why the ATT code in BSD was rewritten. Erich ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: use of the kernel and licensing
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:26:15 -0400 Joe fb...@a1poweruser.com wrote: snip How do you explain all the forks of UNIX each claiming their own copyright. Look very carefully at the copyrights involved, you will see copyright attributions retained very carefully (see for example the file /usr/src/COPYRIGHT in FreeBSD). They all provide the same concept, use the same names for their commands, use the same programming language, have a filesystem as their base. These features are defined in open standards (POSIX and SUS) for anyone who cares to implement them. Just where is the line drawn between a fork and a rewrite? That's simple in essence, if it's written by taking a copy of the code and modifying it then it's a fork (until and unless you can prove that not one single line of the original code remains), if it's written from scratch with no reference to the original code then it's a rewrite. I suppose there are edge cases where a rewrite may include a portion taken from the original (assuming compatible licensing), or where a fork has been so heavily modified that little of the original remains. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith st...@sohara.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: use of the kernel and licensing
On 4/1/2013 11:41 AM, kpn...@pobox.com wrote: Copyright covers expressions of ideas. It does not cover the ideas themselves. You can't copyright a concept, you can't copyright filesystems, and I believe in the past few years a high court in the EU ruled that you can't copyright a programming language. None of the things mentioned above are covered by copyright. Copyright would cover the implementations of these things. That's why it was necessary to reimplement much of BSD. Here's where it gets annoying, copyrights cover implementations, and patents can cover the ideas. A lot of patents use an on a computer line to get it called an invention instead of an math equation. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: use of the kernel and licensing
kpn...@pobox.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 09:22:22AM -0400, Maikoda Sutter wrote: If I use the kernel as a basis for my own system and modify the kernel should I still maintain the licensing of the kernel bits, or could release it under it's own license? For example: I would like to rewrite the headers to be 100% POSIX compliant and I do like the BSD license, however I was planning on releasing my whole system under the Unlicense, I understand that certain headers and code that I do not modify has to be released under the BSD license as that is the original license of the code, however for headers or code that I modify can I release it under the Unlicense (http://unlicense.org/)? I do plan on giving credit where it is due and such to the wonderful developers of FreeBSD and those that wrote the original code because without you I would not be able to produce so rapidly that which I am looking to produce I just would like clarification on the extent that I would have to license things via the BSD license. You cannot yourself change the license on code you do not hold the copyright on. Period. If you make changes and redistribute them then add your copyright notice with license to the files. Do not remove the existing copyright notice(s) and license(s). You hold the copyright for stuff you wrote, but the original copyright stays for the parts that did not come from you. Parts means any fraction of a file from the whole file down to small amounts. You are allowed to add restrictions (unless the existing license says you can't), but you are not allowed to loosen the existing restrictions (unless the existing license says you can). Also, it follows from the copyright that your license only applies to the parts copyrighted by you. The existing licenses are similar in that they apply only to their parts of the file. All licenses must be followed when the file is treated (copied, used, etc) as a whole. Make sure your license isn't incompatible with the license that applies to other parts of the same file. If that happens then how it will turn out in court is anyone's guess. The file may not be usable by the public, or the incompatible license terms added by you may be struck down, or a judge could cook up something else. It can't be predicted in advance so just don't even go there. Giving credit where it is due is an important social convention, and I'm glad to see that you aren't planning on doing anything unethical like breaking it. But copyright comes from the law and thus must be obeyed even if you wanted to break purely social conventions. Read up on copyright, and when you do pay close attention to the reliability of the source. The issue has become very political in the past 15 years or so. Don't be badly advised by someone who has their own agenda. Most people, to varying degrees, have their own agenda. Finally, if money is at stake (directly or indirectly) I strongly advise talking to a copyright lawyer in particular. That's just general advice. Taking advice from random people online is not a good idea if any money is involved, but I'd give the same advice to my best friend. The general rule applies here as it does elsewhere: You get what you pay for. Does one have to file legal paper work with the government to be issued a copyright on software? Does any software not having a copyright statement or any license comments included in the source mean that it's public domain? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: use of the kernel and licensing
On Mar 31, 2013, at 6:39 AM, Joe fb...@a1poweruser.com wrote: kpn...@pobox.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 09:22:22AM -0400, Maikoda Sutter wrote: If I use the kernel as a basis for my own system and modify the kernel should I still maintain the licensing of the kernel bits, or could release it under it's own license? For example: I would like to rewrite the headers to be 100% POSIX compliant and I do like the BSD license, however I was planning on releasing my whole system under the Unlicense, I understand that certain headers and code that I do not modify has to be released under the BSD license as that is the original license of the code, however for headers or code that I modify can I release it under the Unlicense (http://unlicense.org/)? I do plan on giving credit where it is due and such to the wonderful developers of FreeBSD and those that wrote the original code because without you I would not be able to produce so rapidly that which I am looking to produce I just would like clarification on the extent that I would have to license things via the BSD license. You cannot yourself change the license on code you do not hold the copyright on. Period. If you make changes and redistribute them then add your copyright notice with license to the files. Do not remove the existing copyright notice(s) and license(s). You hold the copyright for stuff you wrote, but the original copyright stays for the parts that did not come from you. Parts means any fraction of a file from the whole file down to small amounts. You are allowed to add restrictions (unless the existing license says you can't), but you are not allowed to loosen the existing restrictions (unless the existing license says you can). Also, it follows from the copyright that your license only applies to the parts copyrighted by you. The existing licenses are similar in that they apply only to their parts of the file. All licenses must be followed when the file is treated (copied, used, etc) as a whole. Make sure your license isn't incompatible with the license that applies to other parts of the same file. If that happens then how it will turn out in court is anyone's guess. The file may not be usable by the public, or the incompatible license terms added by you may be struck down, or a judge could cook up something else. It can't be predicted in advance so just don't even go there. Giving credit where it is due is an important social convention, and I'm glad to see that you aren't planning on doing anything unethical like breaking it. But copyright comes from the law and thus must be obeyed even if you wanted to break purely social conventions. Read up on copyright, and when you do pay close attention to the reliability of the source. The issue has become very political in the past 15 years or so. Don't be badly advised by someone who has their own agenda. Most people, to varying degrees, have their own agenda. Finally, if money is at stake (directly or indirectly) I strongly advise talking to a copyright lawyer in particular. That's just general advice. Taking advice from random people online is not a good idea if any money is involved, but I'd give the same advice to my best friend. The general rule applies here as it does elsewhere: You get what you pay for. Does one have to file legal paper work with the government to be issued a copyright on software? No, copyrights are more like artists signing their work -- in a standardized way -- but every bit as legally binding. They are first come priority in the court of law and if-ever disputed, often require correlative evidentiary proof to show true ownership (a notarized copy of the work mailed to yourself kept in an unopened envelope perhaps). Does any software not having a copyright statement or any license comments included in the source mean that it's public domain? Be careful here. The answer to your question is NO. If a work lacks a license in the source, it may be on the website. If you can't find a license, you must always contact the author(s) before forking something. If you can neither find the license nor the contact info, it's always best to assume it is not for reuse. Even the, if you used code that was from an unknown origin with no license and no author, you should indicate as such in the header of such source files. Essentially what it boils down to, is that in the court of law (if someone indicts or brings a civil suit) you may have to account for the origin of every line -- so that's why: 1. If a file has an inline license (beerware, gpl, bsd, apple, or even one you make up all your own), it must stay there to mark the origins 2. If a file is lacking an inline license, it is often because the license is too long or unwieldy to embed and it is in a COPYING file distributed with the source code OR in a terms of agreement on the website (in which case you should download it and place it into
Re: use of the kernel and licensing
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 09:39:29 -0400, Joe wrote: Does one have to file legal paper work with the government to be issued a copyright on software? With _which_ government? :-) Basic understanding of copyright is: The stuff _you_ write happens automatically under _your_ copyright, because you are the creator. There is nothing you need to do to achieve the copyright - it's yours by acting. At the moment you write something like (C) Joe Sixpack 2012 it's set in stone. There might be other ways to prove (!) copyright, e. g. when one of your files appears in someone else's work, but now with the originator line saying (C) Nick Nosewhite 2013. In case of a court trial which involves copyright, you can prove from your CVS log of creation (or whatever source management system or even file system you use) that _you_ have been writing that code, nobody else. Does any software not having a copyright statement or any license comments included in the source mean that it's public domain? I would assume this. Imagine a snippet of code with no author mentioned in it (or in the source it comes from, or any file it is accompanied by), how would you be able to conclude something _else_ than this is public domain with _no_ copyright holder? Note that copyright and license are two different things. A skilled lawyer will be able to explain it more precisely and show you how it applies for the jurisdiction you're living in. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: use of the kernel and licensing
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 16:31:43 +0200, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 09:39:29 -0400, Joe wrote: Does one have to file legal paper work with the government to be issued a copyright on software? With _which_ government? :-) Basic understanding of copyright is: The stuff _you_ write happens automatically under _your_ copyright, because you are the creator. There is nothing you need to do to achieve the copyright - it's yours by acting. At the moment you write something like (C) Joe Sixpack 2012 it's set in stone. There might be other ways to prove (!) copyright, e. g. when one of your files appears in someone else's work, but now with the originator line saying (C) Nick Nosewhite 2013. In case of a court trial which involves copyright, you can prove from your CVS log of creation (or whatever source management system or even file system you use) that _you_ have been writing that code, nobody else. Does any software not having a copyright statement or any license comments included in the source mean that it's public domain? I would assume this. Imagine a snippet of code with no author mentioned in it (or in the source it comes from, or any file it is accompanied by), how would you be able to conclude something _else_ than this is public domain with _no_ copyright holder? I think you are wrong here. quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_software: Under the Berne Convention, which most countries have signed, an author automatically obtains the exclusive copyright to anything they have written, and local law may similarly grant copyright, patent, or trademark rights by default. The Berne Convention also covers programs. Therefore, a program is automatically subject to a copyright, and if it is to be placed in the public domain, the author must explicitly disclaim the copyright and other rights on it in some way. Note the wording explicitly disclaim. While German law has something like a triviality threshold which may well apply to very small code snippets, i'd say no included license by default means all rights reserved. Regards, Michael ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: use of the kernel and licensing
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 16:43:27 +0200, Michael Ross wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 16:31:43 +0200, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 09:39:29 -0400, Joe wrote: Does one have to file legal paper work with the government to be issued a copyright on software? With _which_ government? :-) Basic understanding of copyright is: The stuff _you_ write happens automatically under _your_ copyright, because you are the creator. There is nothing you need to do to achieve the copyright - it's yours by acting. At the moment you write something like (C) Joe Sixpack 2012 it's set in stone. There might be other ways to prove (!) copyright, e. g. when one of your files appears in someone else's work, but now with the originator line saying (C) Nick Nosewhite 2013. In case of a court trial which involves copyright, you can prove from your CVS log of creation (or whatever source management system or even file system you use) that _you_ have been writing that code, nobody else. Does any software not having a copyright statement or any license comments included in the source mean that it's public domain? I would assume this. Imagine a snippet of code with no author mentioned in it (or in the source it comes from, or any file it is accompanied by), how would you be able to conclude something _else_ than this is public domain with _no_ copyright holder? I think you are wrong here. quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_software: Under the Berne Convention, which most countries have signed, an author automatically obtains the exclusive copyright to anything they have written, and local law may similarly grant copyright, patent, or trademark rights by default. The Berne Convention also covers programs. Therefore, a program is automatically subject to a copyright, and if it is to be placed in the public domain, the author must explicitly disclaim the copyright and other rights on it in some way. Note the wording explicitly disclaim. This exactly expresses my interpretation, maybe I didn't find the right words. Obtaining copyright is implicit (by creating stuff), giving up copyright is an explicit act. Copyright information and licensing statements don't have to be neccessarily included in the file in question, they could also be in a file coming with the file in question, such as a LICENSE text file or AUTHORS, or in a manpage refering to a specific program (even though it's quite common to place that information at least as comments in source files). No not finding this information in the source and therefor _assuming_ there is no copyright holder or no license (and therefor all rights granted) is wrong. An exception might actually be code snippets below the 'triviality threshold' (as you mentioned is at least known in Germany) which have been published anonymously. In this case, neither an author or a license can be found, and in the absence of _both_, the assumption of the snippet being in the public domain would at least be undertandable. If it is _valid_ under all circumstances and in all juristictions, that's a totally different questions, to be answered by two lawyers with three opinions. :-) While German law has something like a triviality threshold which may well apply to very small code snippets, i'd say no included license by default means all rights reserved. As for licenses (copyright aside), this may very well be. If no rights are explicitely granted (even the do whatever you want right), it could be invalid to simply _assume_ such a right. The no license included approach, on the other hand, could also show the authors attitude as I don't care, also a valid standpoint... -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
use of the kernel and licensing
If I use the kernel as a basis for my own system and modify the kernel should I still maintain the licensing of the kernel bits, or could release it under it's own license? For example: I would like to rewrite the headers to be 100% POSIX compliant and I do like the BSD license, however I was planning on releasing my whole system under the Unlicense, I understand that certain headers and code that I do not modify has to be released under the BSD license as that is the original license of the code, however for headers or code that I modify can I release it under the Unlicense (http://unlicense.org/)? I do plan on giving credit where it is due and such to the wonderful developers of FreeBSD and those that wrote the original code because without you I would not be able to produce so rapidly that which I am looking to produce I just would like clarification on the extent that I would have to license things via the BSD license. Respectively Yours, Maikoda Raine Arrogant Penguin Industries ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
