Aminet Copyright Upload Dilemma

[mdwh2]

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.

[mdwh2]

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.

[mdwh2]

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.

[mdwh2]

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.

[mdwh2]

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]

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.

[mdwh2]

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"?

[mdwh2]

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.

[mdwh2]

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.