Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: EDanaII on August 25, 2007, 05:48:40 AM
-
In an effort to keep my skills sharp, I just recently took an ancient Aminet WB based game and upgraded it graphically to 24-bit. The original author uploaded some twelve years ago with sources and I decided to take advantage of that fact to get more familiar with the Amiga's API's.
The problem is, the original author asserted his copyright in the code, which I have not removed, instead only taking credit for the latest version, while Aminet asserts that I am forbidden to upload any copyrighted material.
While this doesn't seem that much of a dilemma -- I personally don't have any problem returning the program to Aminet -- I thought I might put the question to the community and see how it felt. I simply don't want to break any taboos.
Remember, I intend to leave the copyright in the original authors name taking credit only for the additional features that I added.
Thoughts?
Ed.
-
If the guy released the code on Aminet, that sounds like his approval to do just what you were going to do. I say go ahead and upload it.
-
I agree.
It would be pretty pointless uploading the source code if you could do nothing with it.
-
I'm not actually worried about the original author, for exactly the reasons you guys cite. I'm merely wondering what Aminet might make of it. :-)
Ed.
-
EDanaII wrote:
I'm not actually worried about the original author, for exactly the reasons you guys cite. I'm merely wondering what Aminet might make of it. :-)
Ed.
Send 'em an Email and ask!
-
EDanaII wrote:
I'm not actually worried about the original author, for exactly the reasons you guys cite. I'm merely wondering what Aminet might make of it. :-)
Ed.
You got the game and the code from Aminet, improved the graphics and whatever else needed to allow it to run in 24bit color and are now just returning it to Aminet! I don't see how it could be any problem for anyone, including Aminet.
I say "Go For It"!!!
Let us know which game it is so we can download it and compliment you for your hard work.
-
If the original author does not say you can not spread modified version you can probably proceed.
However try to reach author and ask for permission. If you can not reach original author but you wish to upload it you should use slightly different name to differentiate from the original version. Obviously you should upload your version with source code.
-
Well, that's part of my dilemma, Itix. The original author does say it's OK to distribute but not to modify. However, I can't imagine him caring now, after all these years. But, as I mentioned above, I'm more concerned about how Aminet would interpret his statement.
I suppose I should contact the author, but his email is ancient and I don't believe the company exists anymore, so I suppose I can drop aminet a line.
Of course, my ultimate goal is to do an object oriented version of the program, rewriting it from scratch and, therefore, making it mine, but that would take a lot more time. For now, I just want to give this back to the community.
@ AmigaDave
It's just a humble Blackjack game. It allowed me to get more familiar with the Amiga developer environment, so it's not too much to cheer about. :-)
Ed.
-
As long as you're not replacing the original upload, I don't see a problem.
-
Well, that's part of my dilemma, Itix. The original author does say it's OK to distribute but not to modify.
If the author say it is not OK to modify then you cant distribute modified version. You could submit binary patch instead.
I suppose I should contact the author, but his email is ancient and I don't believe the company exists anymore, so I suppose I can drop aminet a line.
If you know his real name maybe up to date email address appears at google.
-
I decided to email the original author. Three of the four available emails I had for him bounced. The fourth has not returned but I suspect it's abandoned. I've not heard back yet. If I don't hear after a week, I think I'll assume it doesn't matter anymore. Then, if Aminet doesn't like it, they can always let me know and remove it.
Ed.
-
What exactly does the licence say?
It's a shame that someone would go to the efforts of releasing the source code (which IIRC was fairly rare on the Amiga in the mid-90s), but then say people can't modify it. But if that's what it says, then you aren't allowed to distribute a modified version. In practice, it's unlikely anyone (Aminet or the original author) would know or care, but if you were to ask Aminet, the only answer they could surely give is that you can't distribute copyrighted material that violates the licence.
-
But, as I mentioned above, I'm more concerned about how Aminet would interpret his statement.
We (Aminet) usually do not check licenses of sources uploaded more than twelve years ago when moderating a new upload - if you wouldn't have mentioned it, nobody (neither us nor the original author) would have noticed ;-)
But now that you did mention it, there's only one possible answer we can give you: If the author does not want you to distribute modified versions, we of course can't host a modified version. Trying to get in touch with the original author was the right thing to do.
while Aminet asserts that I am forbidden to upload any copyrighted material.
"Copyright" and "License" are two different things. Pretty much everything on Aminet is copyrighted, but all of it comes with a license that allowes free distribution (either by everybody, or at least by Aminet).
-
The original document says, and I
Distribution:
Feel free to redistribute this archive as often as you like. Just do me a favor and don't change it. These files should be in the archive...[Lists files in archive]
I guess the question for me here is that he declared "don't change THIS archive."
However, this still begs the question, why release the source, if you don't want it to change.
@ cgutjahr
If I upload it as a new archive, under a new version, would that be acceptable?
Ed.
-
Sometimes these things are handled by using binary patches, maybe it is an option in this case too?
-
As I understand author's statement, he is talking about actual archive he put to the Aminet. As long as you release it under new name and keep the copyrights etc, everything should be fine.
-
The original document says, and I Quote:
Feel free to redistribute this archive as often as you like. Just do me a favor and don't change it. These files should be in the archive...[Lists files in archive]
Well, I tend to agree with Exie, he wants his original distribution not to be changed, creating a completely new distribution shouldn't be a problem.
If I upload it as a new archive, under a new version, would that be acceptable?
I'd say yes, given the limited information I have so far. Just upload it and make sure to refer to the original archive in your readme, we'll have a closer look at it then.
-
He says... don't change "this archive". He did not specifically prohibit you from using and modifiying the source then from making a new archive. If he doesn't like what you've done, he can always ask aminet to pull it later or ask you to remove it. Until then, I'd say your ok especially if you're leaving in his original copyright. His copyright is pretty wide open to interpetation as it's written.
Plaz
-
How about uploading a patch (diffs) and build instructions? It's not convenient for those who just want to download the binary and play, but I believe it's legal.
-
As far as I can tell, the only thing you have done wrong is ask about it in the first place.
If it were me, I wouldn't have even bothered to read the license before I spread around a modified version.
-
If it were me, I wouldn't have even bothered to read the license before I spread around a modified version
Well, that's what separates the responsible and the immature.
-
Dietmar wrote:
If it were me, I wouldn't have even bothered to read the license before I spread around a modified version
Well, that's what separates the responsible and the immature.
What is immature is releasing source code to public and placing weird restrictions on it and possibly fretting about what people do with the code after you released it.
Pick a license, bsd, or gpl, but good god, don't write one yourself, thats a waste of time. I think some guys spend more time playing lawyer than writing code.
When you release your source to the public, its no longer in your control. It is a waste of time setting up rules and trying to enforce policy on code thats public released.
-
What is immature is releasing source code to public and placing weird restrictions on it
Even the GPL places "weird restrictions" on source code. It's only natural that creators assert some rights on their work. As to the oddness of releasing source code without far-reaching rights to change and re-use and re-upload, possible reasons might include ...
- the desire of the original author not to be identified with inferior quality and therefore enforcing that changes are released only through him or her, after validatation, and that nobody releases the same program independently or adds unauthorized "improvements".
- the desire to remain into control of the direction of the development while still encouraging other developers to spot bugs (peer review) and submit improvements.
- the desire to proove that the code is not malicious
- to demonstrate the use of APIs
- vanity
When you release your source to the public, its no longer in your control
Sad but true, developers have to take into account the immoral streak in parts of the audience. Look at the GPL and the bag of clauses that is necessary even for a free-lunch style of license.
Pick a license, bsd, or gpl, but good god, don't write one yourself, thats a waste of time.
While you have a point here, wouldn't that be wasted on you? I believe you advocated to skip any license entirely and proceed directy to uploading.
-
Cool it, Dietmar, you're making a big deal out of nothing. My asking was merely politeness and what Koafter (and others) has suggested isn't murder. You're accusations and insinuations are uncalled for.
@ cgutjahr
All right, will do. Unfortunately, I've uncovered a few more bugs I didn't know I had, so it may take me a while longer to get the new archive together.
Ed.
-
Cool it, Dietmar, you're making a big deal out of nothing
If you don't want opinions, don't open a thread and ask for thoughts.
-
Dietmar wrote:
What is immature is releasing source code to public and placing weird restrictions on it
Even the GPL places "weird restrictions" on source code. It's only natural that creators assert some rights on their work. As to the oddness of releasing source code without far-reaching rights to change and re-use and re-upload, possible reasons might include ...
- the desire of the original author not to be identified with inferior quality and therefore enforcing that changes are released only through him or her, after validatation, and that nobody releases the same program independently or adds unauthorized "improvements".
- the desire to remain into control of the direction of the development while still encouraging other developers to spot bugs (peer review) and submit improvements.
- the desire to proove that the code is not malicious
- to demonstrate the use of APIs
- vanity
When you release your source to the public, its no longer in your control
Sad but true, developers have to take into account the immoral streak in parts of the audience. Look at the GPL and the bag of clauses that is necessary even for a free-lunch style of license.
Pick a license, bsd, or gpl, but good god, don't write one yourself, thats a waste of time.
While you have a point here, wouldn't that be wasted on you? I believe you advocated to skip any license entirely and proceed directy to uploading.
You are being anal.
Unless you are going to use open sourced code for commercial purposes the license doesn't mean much. You have two options when it comes to releasing modded open sourced code, submit patches to the author or fork.
It's obvious that one should not usurp another's project, it's obvious that one should give credit where its due.
People release their source so their app doesn't die and so other people can modify it to suit their needs and desires.
-
@ Dietmar:
Cool it, Dietmar, you're making a big deal out of nothing
If you don't want opinions, don't open a thread and ask for thoughts.
It's not your opinion I'm knocking, it's your _attitude._ Hence the choice of the words "cool it" instead of "shut it." Show some manners.
Ed.
-
What was the point of the author upping the source code in first place, considering that he did not want anyone to modify the code. The main reason people up source codes, is so that other people can modify it and keep making improvements to the code.
Are you sure you did not misunderstand the license? Like was it not just saying that you should not modify the code and then re release it as your own work? Any chance you could copy/paste that bit from the license?
Edit: I just saw that the license part was already posted..
I have to agree with some of the previous posters, that the author is just talking about the original archive. I dont think it was meant to stop people from releasing a modified version under a different archive name. Just make it clear in the archive name that this is not the original version and it should be fine.
-
Unless you are going to use open sourced code for commercial purposes the license doesn't mean much
A license means just what it says and you are not free to ignore it, and specifically not the developer's copyright. If you advocate to ignore licenses ("it were me, I wouldn't have even bothered to read the license before I spread around"), because of some twisted idea that a non-commercial approach changes everything, then you are not showing the developer the respect he or she deserves. The fact that code is made available to you does not always mean you are free to do with it whatever you like.
-
Dietmar wrote:
Unless you are going to use open sourced code for commercial purposes the license doesn't mean much
A license means just what it says and you are not free to ignore it, and specifically not the developer's copyright. If you advocate to ignore licenses ("it were me, I wouldn't have even bothered to read the license before I spread around"), because of some twisted idea that a non-commercial approach changes everything, then you are not showing the developer the respect he or she deserves. The fact that code is made available to you does not always mean you are free to do with it whatever you like.
In the 15 years I've been writing software, I've never seen a license for an open sourced project that didn't permit people to non-commercially modify and share and that's why I wouldn't bother to read the license.
You show the developer respect by not usurping the project or trying to take credit for code you didn't write.
-
@Dietmar:
The fact that code is made available to you does not always mean you are free to do with it whatever you like.
Please... keep it secret then, although one could still disassemble it.
I may do with it whatever I like that it is in the realm of law in my country. If his license goes against it I might as well choose to ignore it.
Disclaimer:
One might only disagree with me only if he/she gives me his/her car.
-
I've never seen a license for an open sourced project that didn't permit people to non-commercially modify
You should make a difference between "open-sourced projects" (collaborative efforts, we are not really talking about those) and "proprietary projects shipping with source code". Developers, odd as it may seem, sometimes give source code but retain ownership.
@pixie:
I may do with it whatever I like ...
No.
... that it is in the realm of law in my country
Yes. That's a serious qualifier to the above statement, isn't it? Your argument jumps like a lion but lands like a mouse. You are living in a country that has signed up to the WIPO treaties (World Intellectual Property Organization) and the Bern convention. That means you can expect that your copyright is respected and are required to respect others' copyright. Copyright places all rights, including the right to modify and distribute, with the creator. The license is the bit in which the copyright holder relinquishes some (or all) of these rights, so you better respect that part, it has been written for you benefit.
-
Dietmar wrote:
I've never seen a license for an open sourced project that didn't permit people to non-commercially modify
You should make a difference between "open-sourced projects" (collaborative efforts, we are not really talking about those) and "proprietary projects shipping with source code". Developers, odd as it may seem, sometimes give source code but retain ownership.
No, actually I shouldn't. Scope or scale doesn't have any relevance to code placed into the public and ownership has nothing to do with anything. If you place something in public you still own it, but what is done with it is out of your control. Nobody releases code into the public with the expectation that people wont modify and share.
I have a tip for you: Spend less time playing lawyer, and more time writing code.
-
I think Dietmar makes sensible points. Both views are right, in a way.
I mean yes, if people release source code and upload it to Aminet, they're probably going to be okay with you modifying it and also uploading to Aminet. Also, as long as you are distributing the modified source code too, and do not place additional restrictions upon your release, then yes, it's probably true this is compatible with most open source projects (in fact, I believe it may be true by definition for Open Source - Dietmar is right in that there is a distinction between Open Source, and projects that might have the source available to view).
But I suspect disagreement arose because of the implication that you can do what you like with the code. As stated, licences like the GPL place restrictions on code. I'm also not sure if koaftder's point was that certain restrictions were bad, or just that it's simpler if developers use standard well known licences?
If you place something in public you still own it, but what is done with it is out of your control.
This simply isn't true, legally. Just because you release something in public does not mean people can distribute it as they like - be default, any further distribution is copyright infringement. This goes for anything - come on, we aren't still perpetuating the old myth that if you find it on a webpage, it must be free to distribute?
This might be your opinion, but it is not what the law says.
-
If you place something in public you still own it, but what is done with it is out of your control
Somehow you seem to have entirely missed a large chunk of reality: copyright and license issues are dicussed ad nauseam everywhere and still you manage to grow these absurd ideads. What is "placed in the public" is placed there under the terms of some license, not unconditionally or randomly or free-for-taking, and thus certainly not out of control. The advice to ignore any license on such grounds as a non-commercial approach is novel, to put it carefully ;)
Scope or scale doesn't have any relevance to code placed into the public
Can't follow these thoughts, scope and scale didn't even come up so far. The point was that projects released with source code are not necessariyl "open source projects" in the usual sense (free to be changed by the open source community): Unless the developer states otherwise, the source code is just another, copyrighted part of the shipment and the use of it is goverened by his or her license.
Nobody releases code into the public with the expectation that people wont modify and share
Apparently replies to you share the fate of licenses and remain unread. Not so far above, various reasons have been pointed out why some developers release source code but do not expect (nor allow) modifications.
-
@koaftder
Spend less time playing lawyer, and more time writing code.
Same to you, sir.
All material you create (released or not) remain copyrighted, unless if you explicitly place them in public domain. "Released to public" doesn't automagically mean "public domain".
If the license is (legally) unclear or vague, the copyright is the default, and you can't redistribute. In such cases the only (legally solid) way is to try contact the original author somehow and ask for permission (google can do wonders here).
This might seem anal, but this is how it works.
-
Let's talk GPL, I may do with it whichever I like as long as I do not distribute it... which part exactly did you not understand?
Developers, odd as it may seem, sometimes give source code but retain ownership.
Which odd as it may seem I never questioned about.
Yes. That's a serious qualifier to the above statement, isn't it? Your argument jumps like a lion but lands like a mouse. You are living in a country that has signed up to the WIPO treaties (World Intellectual Property Organization) and the Bern convention. That means you can expect that your copyright is respected and are required to respect others' copyright. Copyright places all rights, including the right to modify and distribute, with the creator. The license is the bit in which the copyright holder relinquishes some (or all) of these rights, so you better respect that part, it has been written for you benefit.
We don't live in a lawless state, nor do laws came out of random, as such you cannot have a copyright statement where it says for example:
You can only use this software if you stand only by one foot.
I was not talking in taking the place of copyright from anyone, just that what he can or cannot do is already covered, it's not as if he possess all that freedom of which you talk about, it's was opened, as such he got proof of the copyright of what was written, the rest is out of his control...
-
pixie wrote:
Let's talk GPL, I may do with it whichever I like as long as I do not distribute it... which part exactly did you not understand?
I you do not distribute, yes that is correct. But I presumed we were talking about distribution - that's what the OP was about, and what we've been talking about all through the thread, as far as I can tell. But yes, if you don't distribute it, you don't have to worry about the licence.
-
I was talking only that I could do with it whichever I wanted, distribution is not something I do with the software, I do not run distribution, I do not compile distribution, I do not do upgrades to distribution, with the software yes, I do whichever I want.
-
Let's talk GPL
Let's not, that's another topic (that's a well-formed license and no second-guessing is required).
-
Piru wrote:
@koaftder
Spend less time playing lawyer, and more time writing code.
Same to you, sir.
All material you create (released or not) remain copyrighted, unless if you explicitly place them in public domain. "Released to public" doesn't automagically mean "public domain".
If the license is (legally) unclear or vague, the copyright is the default, and you can't redistribute. In such cases the only (legally solid) way is to try contact the original author somehow and ask for permission (google can do wonders here).
This might seem anal, but this is how it works.
Obviously I can't argue with you on that, but have you ever run across a project that was distributed publicly with a license that forbid modifying and sharing the modified source with third parties in a non-commercial setting? I never have.
-
Dietmar wrote:
Let's talk GPL
Let's not, that's another topic (that's a well-formed license and no second-guessing is required).
That is the value of using a standard well accepted and understood license.
-
Dietmar wrote:
If you place something in public you still own it, but what is done with it is out of your control
Somehow you seem to have entirely missed a large chunk of reality: copyright and license issues are dicussed ad nauseam everywhere and still you manage to grow these absurd ideads. What is "placed in the public" is placed there under the terms of some license, not unconditionally or randomly or free-for-taking, and thus certainly not out of control. The advice to ignore any license on such grounds as a non-commercial approach is novel, to put it carefully ;)
Scope or scale doesn't have any relevance to code placed into the public
Can't follow these thoughts, scope and scale didn't even come up so far. The point was that projects released with source code are not necessariyl "open source projects" in the usual sense (free to be changed by the open source community): Unless the developer states otherwise, the source code is just another, copyrighted part of the shipment and the use of it is goverened by his or her license.
Nobody releases code into the public with the expectation that people wont modify and share
Apparently replies to you share the fate of licenses and remain unread. Not so far above, various reasons have been pointed out why some developers release source code but do not expect (nor allow) modifications.
Nitpicking.
-
I was talking only that I could do with it whichever I wanted
There are limits even then (unless you are only talking about GPL'ed software?). For example, if you unlock an unlockable feature that you didn't purchase, you are probably comitting fraud.
-
@koaftder
have you ever run across a project that was distributed publicly with a license that forbid modifying and sharing the modified source with third parties in a non-commercial setting
That is not necessary since it is the default due to copyright anyway. The license must explicitly specify the limits of distribution by granting the rights.
Thus any project that includes source and doesn't include any clear license is in fact such project.
-
".. out of your control" (or whatever).
So what ? Just because it's out of his control doesn't mean the law allows it (hell if someone breaks into my house it's not in my control too), and the law is right, it's immoral to pick up others work and do what we want with it without permission for the simple reason that there can be various reasons to release software including the source. And even if there wasn't any, why wouldn't he be allowed to ? After all it's he's work, he might as well just want to share the beauty of his code ;)
BTW I'm only commenting on this because my serialization library will have big use of very complicated macros, which of course will have to be open. I'd like to make it cheap shareware, but I'm screwed. If it turns out to be recognized to any extent, I'm already pissed just to think that some people from the open source community will simply rip of the macros promptly (the macros is where the magic is), voiding my total 4/5 months of work / research and avoiding any possibility of profit from me. I'll have to make a license like " .. if you rip of these macros, I'll personally go to your home and shoot you in the balls .."
-
if you rip of these macros, I'll personally go to your home and shoot you in the balls ..
Jose, that might be violation of legislation prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity (shoot to kill instead?).
-
@Dietmar
Nah, I want them to suffer first;) "Private parts" then..
-
Dietmar wrote:
Let's talk GPL
Let's not, that's another topic (that's a well-formed license and no second-guessing is required).
You said it all, well-formed license... those who aren't have no grounds to stand for.
-
Dietmar wrote:
I was talking only that I could do with it whichever I wanted
There are limits even then (unless you are only talking about GPL'ed software?). For example, if you unlock an unlockable feature that you didn't purchase, you are probably comitting fraud.
First, weren't we talkin about open source, second if that's the case how would it have unlockable features, third, if an unlockable feature gets unlocked doesn't it cease to be unlockable?
Unless you're implying the author while exposing these unlockable features expect that no one mess with them, which is just plain dumb, namely for one author who can write some kind of unlockable software.
-
First, weren't we talkin about open source
No. Well, that depends on what you mean by open source. We didn't talk about software placed under an Open Source license. That would be a clear-cut case and not warrant discussion. The subject was proprietary software shipping with source code.
if an unlockable feature gets unlocked doesn't it cease to be unlockable?
"Unlockable" means it it can be unlocked (the verb is unlock), so it becomes unlocked.
-
I think everyone acknowledges that the law doesn't preclude just reading through the source code. What's the proper course of action in the event the reader gets an idea from the source code and re-implements it in his or her own project? Where is the line drawn? The idea, which is the property of another author, is still being taken advantage of, and worse, claimed by someone else. But without the combination of the Copyrighted idea and the reader's ideas, nothing new could be created from previously owned ideas.
So, if I were to read through source code, get an idea from it and rewrite it my own way, what's the difference? It's still their idea, not mine. I'm still taking it. I'm still using it for my own purposes.
None of us would be able to write software for any computer if we hadn't taken ideas from other people at some point. In an ideal world, ideas are only taken from sources that are free to be shared. But what's being talked about in this thread is taking ideas from source that possibly isn't free to be shared. The implication is that all who read the source code are then obligated to forget everything they've read when they start working on their own project.
When I look at it this way, the whole thing starts to sound silly, doesn't it.
How's this for the deep thought of the day:
*Everything you know is the result of your own intellectual abilities and experiences combined with other people sharing information with you. Therefore, limiting the sharing of knowledge limits knowledge, and that, in any forum, is a very questionable end.
*I just made that up. Therefore it's mine. Don't use it, repeat it, or copy it. Ever. :-P
-
No. Well, that depends on what you mean by open source. We didn't talk about software placed under an Open Source license. That would be a clear-cut case and not warrant discussion. The subject was proprietary software shipping with source code.
Which is great for nitpicking... if it ships with source code for me it's open sourced..."Unlockable" means it it can be unlocked (the verb is unlock), so it becomes unlocked.
I got it backwards... but what is the problem of unlocking unlockable software, aren't they meant to be that way, unlocked? :-P
-
Roj wrote:
What's the proper course of action in the event the reader gets an idea from the source code and re-implements it in his or her own project? Where is the line drawn? The idea, which is the property of another author, is still being taken advantage of, and worse, claimed by someone else. But without the combination of the Copyrighted idea and the reader's ideas, nothing new could be created from previously owned ideas.
So, if I were to read through source code, get an idea from it and rewrite it my own way, what's the difference? It's still their idea, not mine. I'm still taking it. I'm still using it for my own purposes.
None of us would be able to write software for any computer if we hadn't taken ideas from other people at some point. In an ideal world, ideas are only taken from sources that are free to be shared.
But ideas can't be copyrighted, so this is legal - this silly situation doesn't exist.
But what's being talked about in this thread is taking ideas from source that possibly isn't free to be shared. The implication is that all who read the source code are then obligated to forget everything they've read when they start working on their own project.
Nope, we were talking about taking someone's code and redistributing it with modifications. Not merely taking an idea. And hence not at all silly. Copyright distinguishes between "ideas" and implementation of ideas.
I mean, are you going to say it's okay for me to copy mp3s, or maybe do my own performance which I sell, because music is just "ideas", and there's no difference between a complete song, and a simple musical idea? The law says otherwise.
-
pixie wrote:
Which is great for nitpicking... if it ships with source code for me it's open sourced...
Not really relevant to the original point, but note that "open source software" generally means software where not only can you see the source, but where you are allowed to distribute it with modifications (the term was invented and popularised to have this meaning in the late 90s - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software ).
-
mdwh2 wrote:
But ideas can't be copyrighted, so this is legal - this silly situation doesn't exist.
Yet people can and do get sued, fined or, in the worst case, jailed when they're able to defeat the idea behind DRM. It's a very narrow example maybe, but it is a valid example of an idea that can't be distributed freely. So saying ideas can't be copyrighted isn't necessarily true as a blanket statement anymore.
Nope, we were talking about taking someone's code and redistributing it with modifications.
It's the with modifications part that's under scrutiny. If code, or to follow your example, a song, is modified in some capacity, it's no longer just one person's intellectual property. Does the fact that it now contains parts of work done by others wholly invalidate the new production? If it's just copied verbatim, then sure, something must be done to protect the original work.
But how many times does listening to one song remind you of another, or sound like another? Weird Al does it all the time, and some artists have gotten very angry with him over some of the things he's done although that's a different category. He's still within the law. How far do you go to protect creative works? When the result is the loss of equally creative works, in my opinion you've gone too far.
-
@Roj
Weird Al does it all the time
It should be noted that he asks for permission, and that parody have some protection, too.
Yet, sometimes that hasn't been enough: http://blog.mises.org/archives/005371.asp
-
Roj wrote:
mdwh2 wrote:
But ideas can't be copyrighted, so this is legal - this silly situation doesn't exist.
Yet people can and do get sued, fined or, in the worst case, jailed when they're able to defeat the idea behind DRM. It's a very narrow example maybe, but it is a valid example of an idea that can't be distributed freely. So saying ideas can't be copyrighted isn't necessarily true as a blanket statement anymore.
This wasn't because ideas can be copyrighted, it's because of the DMCA, which makes it a criminal offence to circumvent a copyright protection. Yes it's a silly law. Yes it prevents people telling people certain "ideas". But it doesn't mean that ideas can be copyrighted, nor does it apply to ideas generally - it only applies to ways of breaking copyright protections.
It's the with modifications part that's under scrutiny. If code, or to follow your example, a song, is modified in some capacity, it's no longer just one person's intellectual property. Does the fact that it now contains parts of work done by others wholly invalidate the new production? If it's just copied verbatim, then sure, something must be done to protect the original work.
But how many times does listening to one song remind you of another, or sound like another? Weird Al does it all the time, and some artists have gotten very angry with him over some of the things he's done although that's a different category. He's still within the law. How far do you go to protect creative works? When the result is the loss of equally creative works, in my opinion you've gone too far.
Well obviously to some degree it's a continuous thing between a song which sounds similar, and a song which is a copy with modifications. Ultimately that's up to the courts to decide. That doesn't mean however that two ends of the spectrum - a basic idea like "let's write a fantasy novel", and a direct copy like "let's make a word-for-word copy of The Lord Of The Rings, but change the names" are equivalent. One is clearly legal, the other is clearly not.
Getting back to source code, yes for simply algorithms it will be difficult to tell the difference between the same idea being reimplemented separately (legal) and someone who copied the code with possible modifications (not legal), but that doesn't mean the distinction is pointless. With large programs, it becomes a lot easier for a court to decide the difference.
-
If code, or to follow your example, a song, is modified in some capacity, it's no longer just one person's intellectual property
Don't be so naive. The written word, songs, notes, software etc. are protected by copyright, you can't just get hold of something, modify it and expect to have obtained partial ownership. There are some extremely limited fair use provisions (such as the permission to quote short passages, with attribution) but that's all you get for free. Use of somebody's work requires that you obtain a permission (license) and, unless that person is good sports about that, there will be a payment of royalties. Here is an answer from Weird Al himself (http://www.weirdal.com/aaarchive.htm) on that topic: "There is a 'royalty ceiling' on parodies for each album (meaning there are only so many parodies I can put on each album before it starts eating into my own profits), and I needed to eliminate a song from the list, so I chose "Girls Just Wanna Have Lunch."
-
Good grief...
You don't make your sources available to the public if you don't intend for people to modify and share. If you release your source to public don't boo hoo when Bob does something with it you don't like. Any normal, rational human being that writes software knows that you can't control what people do with the source and the author would be wasting his time trying to enforce a wierd-o license against people doing what they naturally do with source thats freely available, which is tweak and share.
Most of the points brought up by various people in here are certainly valid, but they mostly apply to commercial settings, and with commercial products. The contractual and licensing issues that have been put forth for discussion certainly do make sense in commercial settings. In these instances, the code does come with specific and very detailed circumstances that absolutely should be followed, but lets face it, this is in relation to source that isn't public released and thus it doesn't really relate to this thread now does it?
-
don't make your sources available to the public if you don't intend for people to modify and share
If developers provide source code for your viewing pleasure without handing over the entire rights, that's their decision, not yours to make. Who are you to tell them how to release? Read the license, will you. That's not very much to ask for. Developers having reservations about what they permit and spelling that out in a license have to be respected.
-
Will you tell me how to use? It's my decision to take not theirs...
-
It's my decision to take not theirs...
Well, it just isn't (you may stomp on the floor now but that probably won't change anything, but give it a try anyway ;)
-
You don't make your sources available to the public if you don't intend for people to modify and share.
Just like dont park your car to public places if you dont intend for people to modify and share ;-)
(fixed broken quote)
-
itix wrote:
[quuote]
You don't make your sources available to the public if you don't intend for people to modify and share.
Just like dont park your car to public places if you dont intend for people to modify and share ;-)
[/quote]
There is a difference between parking your car in a public place, and parking your car in a public place with the windows rolled down and the keys in the ignition with a note in the front seat that reads, "You may sit in this seat but you may not drive this car to any location other than Mc Donalds. You are not allowed to have a friend sit in the passenger seat. You may purchase food from Mc Donalds, but you may not use this vehicle to purchase food for a friend. You may not allow food purchased while sitting in this vehicle that you have not finished to be eaten by third parties.".
-
Dietmar wrote:
It's my decision to take not theirs...
Well, it just isn't (you may stomp on the floor now but that probably won't change anything, but give it a try anyway ;)
Well, it's their burden... it's as if one cross the road without even looking, you might be right, but it's YOU who take the hit, and there's not compensation who will take it from you.
-
You may sit in this seat but you may not drive this car
Weird rules are an owner's privilege. Become an owener, become an anarchist or pursue an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership.
-
If I read this right, Dietmar is expecting everyone to follow the rules. The rules are the rules and that's just the way it is. It's an admirable, if utopian viewpoint.
On the other hand, most everyone else understands that uploading source code, like leaving keys in the ignition with instructions on using your car, and expecting those instructions to be followed, is only going to lead to disappointment. That's reality. It's just the way people are.
Knowing that, accepting it, and being smart about what to expose to the public and what not to, are about all the owner of whatever property is being exposed to the public can do to avoid being disappointed.
Weird rules are an owner's privilege. Become an owener, become an anarchist or pursue an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership.
You called me naive, but truly it's naive to expect any instructions accompanying freely available source code to be adhered to by the general public.
I think Copyright infringement happened like five minutes after the invention of the first computer. The switch was flipped, and then somebody copied something they weren't supposed to. Seriously, my point is that Copyright infringement and the computer are so closely related that they pretty much go hand-in-hand. Whether anyone chooses to accept that or not doesn't matter. That's the reality of it.
Knowing that, and expecting the world to suddenly change because you want your intellectual property handled according to a set of instructions is just not having your feet grounded firmly in reality. I'm not saying it's right that it is that way. I'm just pointing out that it is that way, and it will be that way for years to come.
@Ed
If you weren't confused before, I bet you're confused after listening to us! :lol:
-
If I read this right, Dietmar is expecting everyone to follow the rules
Gosh, no. Like you, I expect that normal behaviour prevails and that software licenses are not read. Which is a shame if they are as funny as the two below. But let's draw a line between that and discussing The Rules.
--- cut
LICENSING AGREEMENT
-------------------
By breaking this seal, the user hereinafter agrees to abide by all the terms and conditions of the following agreement nobody ever reads, as well as the Geneva Convention and the UN Charter and the Secret Membership Oath of the Benevolent Protective Order of the Elks and other terms and conditions, real and imaginary, as the Software Company shall deem necessary and appropriate, including the right to come to the user's home and examine the user's hard drive, as well as [...]
(Dave Berry, home.xnet.com/~raven/Sysadmin/Barry.html)
Here is another good one:
Bloodthirsty License Agreement
------------------------------
This is where the bloodthirsty license agreement is supposed to go, explaining that Interactive Easyflow is a copyrighted package licensed for use by a single person, and sternly warning you not to pirate copies of it and explaining, in detail, the gory consequences [...]
(www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/88q2/29609.17.html)
-
You don't make your sources available to the public if you don't intend for people to modify and share. If you release your source to public don't boo hoo when Bob does something with it you don't like. Any normal, rational human being that writes software knows that you can't control what people do with the source and the author would be wasting his time trying to enforce a wierd-o license against people doing what they naturally do with source thats freely available, which is tweak and share.
Most of the points brought up by various people in here are certainly valid, but they mostly apply to commercial settings, and with commercial products.
So why is it mad if an individual does it, but fine for companies?
Do you apply the same principle for anything you find on the Internet, or only source code?
Can I ask what you mean by "wierd-o licence"?
-
pixie wrote:
Will you tell me how to use? It's my decision to take not theirs...
As I said: we're talking about distribution. I think you said you were talking about not-distributing. That's the difference. The latter is your decision, but the former isn't.
-
koaftder wrote:
There is a difference between parking your car in a public place, and parking your car in a public place with the windows rolled down and the keys in the ignition with a note in the front seat that reads, "You may sit in this seat but you may not drive this car to any location other than Mc Donalds. You are not allowed to have a friend sit in the passenger seat. You may purchase food from Mc Donalds, but you may not use this vehicle to purchase food for a friend. You may not allow food purchased while sitting in this vehicle that you have not finished to be eaten by third parties.".
But I'd say those things are comparable to a restrictive EULA, not distribution licences. I agree EULAs are silly and legally dubious, but distribution is covered by copyright law. Hence, it's more like driving a car into somewhere you aren't allowed to go without permission, i.e., trespass.
-
@ Roj,
If you weren't confused before, I bet you're confused after listening to us! :lol:
Confused? Nah... More like amused. There are two arguments going on in this thread, one of principle and the other of the practical. And while I'm all for being principled, there are times when it just doesn't make any sense. Is this one of those times. Don't know. Don't care. :-)
Ed.