Aminet Copyright Upload Dilemma

[quenthal]

Sometimes these things are handled by using binary patches, maybe it is an option in this case too?

[ExiE_]

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.

[cgutjahr]

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.

[Plaz]

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

[Lozrus]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[EDanaII]

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.

[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.

[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.

[EDanaII]

@ 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.

[Tomas]

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.

[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.

[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.