Aminet Copyright Upload Dilemma

[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.

[Jose]

".. out of your control" (or whatever).

So what ? Just because it's out of his control doesn't mean the law allows it (hell if someone breaks into my house it's not in my control too), and the law is right, it's immoral to pick up others work and do what we want with it without permission for the simple reason that there can be various reasons to release software including the source. And even if there wasn't any, why wouldn't he be allowed to ? After all it's he's work, he might as well just want to share the beauty of his code

BTW I'm only commenting on this because my serialization library will have big use of very complicated macros, which of course will have to be open. I'd like to make it cheap shareware, but I'm screwed. If it turns out to be recognized to any extent, I'm already pissed just to think that some people from the open source community will simply rip of the macros promptly (the macros is where the magic is), voiding my total 4/5 months of work / research and avoiding any possibility of profit from me. I'll have to make a license like " .. if you rip of these macros, I'll personally go to your home and shoot you in the balls .."

[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?).

[Jose]

@Dietmar

Nah, I want them to suffer first;) "Private parts" then..

[pixie]

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).

You said it all, well-formed license... those who aren't have no grounds to stand for.

[pixie]

Dietmar wrote:

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.

First, weren't we talkin about open source, second if that's the case how would it have unlockable features, third, if an unlockable feature gets unlocked doesn't it cease to be unlockable?

Unless you're implying the author while exposing these unlockable features expect that no one mess with them, which is just plain dumb, namely for one author who can write some kind of unlockable software.

[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.

[Roj]

I think everyone acknowledges that the law doesn't preclude just reading through the source code. 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 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.

When I look at it this way, the whole thing starts to sound silly, doesn't it.


How's this for the deep thought of the day:

*Everything you know is the result of your own intellectual abilities and experiences combined with other people sharing information with you. Therefore, limiting the sharing of knowledge limits knowledge, and that, in any forum, is a very questionable end.

*I just made that up. Therefore it's mine. Don't use it, repeat it, or copy it. Ever. :-P

[pixie]

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.

Which is great for nitpicking... if it ships with source code for me it's open sourced...

"Unlockable" means it it can be unlocked (the verb is unlock), so it becomes unlocked.

I got it backwards... but what is the problem of unlocking unlockable software, aren't they meant to be that way, unlocked? :-P

[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 ).

[Roj]

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.

Nope, we were talking about taking someone's code and redistributing it with modifications.

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.

[Piru]

@Roj

Weird Al does it all the time

It should be noted that he asks for permission, and that parody have some protection, too.

Yet, sometimes that hasn't been enough: http://blog.mises.org/archives/005371.asp

[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.

[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."

[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?