Aminet Copyright Upload Dilemma

[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.

[pixie]

@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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Piru]

@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.

[pixie]

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...

[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.

[pixie]

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.

[Dietmar]

Let's talk GPL

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

[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.

[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.

[Piru]

@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.