Aminet Copyright Upload Dilemma

[koaftder]

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.

[koaftder]

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.

[koaftder]

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.

[koaftder]

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.

[koaftder]

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.

[koaftder]

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.

[koaftder]

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.

[koaftder]

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.

[koaftder]

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?

[koaftder]

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.".