Aminet Copyright Upload Dilemma

[Dietmar]

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]

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.

[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.

[Dietmar]

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]

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]

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.

[Dietmar]

Let's talk GPL

Let's not, that's another topic (that's a well-formed license and no second-guessing is required).

[Dietmar]

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.

[Dietmar]

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]

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.

[Dietmar]

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."

[Dietmar]

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.

[Dietmar]

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

[Dietmar]

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.

[Dietmar]

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)