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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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*
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*
(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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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:
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).
#
#
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
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
50 matches
Mail list logo
