Mmmh. Not always - at least, not in French right, for instance. If there
is no license tied to code on a web site, but said code is clearly
defined as Mr X's code, then it is implicit that you don't have the
right to use it, integrate it, etc. for whatever purpose unless you have
some written (1) authorization from Mr X.
If you use the code for your personal needs and don't publish the code
or try to make money with a derivative from it, what I've just said
doesn't apply, of course.
Now there is always the matter of "common sense", which would have us
think that since the code is available for free, without anything
written about using it, then it should be alright to reuse it. Most of
the time, this assertion is correct. Sometimes it is not (just think of
the "GIF problem" a few years ago - I know, this isn't the same kind of
problem, but it is related in some way).
(1) : well, "written", or at least "perfectly non-ambiguous".
--
Stéphane Zuckerman
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The idea that someone has "ownership" of code anyway (legalisms aside) is
somewhat megalomaniacal. I don't think anyone can code even a single line of
code without benefiting from someone else's work.
Should we comment credit
to the GOF every time we apply a design pattern?
If I remember correctly, your are explicitly allowed to use the code
given in their book, and as far as I can remember, every CS/IT book I've
read has made the same explicit authorization.
Should we ask for
permission every time we google our way through a problem and integrate the
code (yes, even using copy/paste) into our package, then distribute it to
the public?
This is already another kind of code reuse. And if the web site is done
"the right way" (whatever that might mean), you should be able to see
somewhere on the web site that you do have a right for reusing the code
you saw.
This idea that "you sole my (his/her) code" only applies when the code was
literally stolen: forcefully or covertly taken.
This is what happens in practice, yes. Now imagine someone does this
wonderful library, which is very convenient. For YOUR kind of
development, this is The Right Tool. And you're not the only one to
think that way. And now, the "owner" of this library starts saying "hey,
I've never said that you could do some commercial stuff with MY library".
Like I said, this is more or less what's happened with the GIF image
format, excepted that there was a patent on it which was never used,
until it became apparent that everybody on the web was using this image
format (at least at some point in Internet time :-) ).
In the end I agree with you of course. But that doesn't mean that, in
the law's point of view, you (or me, or anyone sensible around) are right.
--
Stéphane Zuckerman
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
