Re-using copyrighted code
Rick Johnson
rantingrickjohnson at gmail.com
Sun Jun 9 21:17:27 EDT 2013
On Sunday, June 9, 2013 4:08:54 PM UTC-5, zipher wrote:
> >> That's not entirely correct. If he *publishes* his code (I'm using
>
> >> this term "publish" technically to mean "put forth in a way where
>
> >> anyone of the general public can or is encouraged to view"), then he
>
> >> is *tacitly* giving up protections that secrecy (or *not* disclosing
>
> >> it) would *automatically* grant. The only preserved right is
>
> >> authorship after that. So it can be re-distributed freely, if
>
> >> authorship is preserved. The only issue after that is "fair use" and
>
> >> that includes running the program (not merely copying the source).
>
> >
>
> > No, the original author retains all rights except those explicitly
>
> > granted. The same way that obtaining the "source" to a song does not
>
> > give you the right to redistribute the song all you want.
>
>
>
> No, you are right only by the *word* of the law, but you have not
>
> included the authors *actions*. A court has to include both.
>
>
>
> He explicitly did not *retain* his rights when he *published* his
>
> code. There is not word of law that is necessary when his actions
>
> have already done the deed (unless under coercion, of course).
>
>
>
> > Fair use has nothing to do with money. It depends on how the work is
>
> > used and how you've changed it. Weird Al's song parodies are fair use,
>
> > even though he sells them.
>
>
>
> That can't really be claimed without a case being brought against him.
>
> Michael Jackson, for example, probably could have made a case against
>
> WierdAl, but did not -- that does not automatically mean that
>
> WierdAl's use was fair-use in the slightest. In fact, it probably was
>
> not, but MJ made enough money that he probably also didn't want to the
>
> PR loss.
>
>
>
> > You distributing copies of a commercial
>
> > software to everyone is not fair use, even though you aren't making
>
> > money.
>
>
>
> It *is* absolutely fair use, if that commercial software *published*
>
> their code (in the definition I gave earlier). If you stole the code
>
> off their protected servers, it is not fair use.
>
>
>
> >> Well this is where one must make a distinction with fair-use -- if I
>
> >> re-publish my modifications then the code is still subject to the
>
> >> terms by the original author. If I make a copy for myself and run the
>
> >> problem for personal, non-commercial use, then I am in the domain of
>
> >> fair use and have no other obligations.
>
> >
>
> > Again, no. The GPL does not restrict your rights when running on
>
> > machines you control, but that's just because of the terms of the
>
> > license. Most commercial licenses include terms like "no reverse
>
> > engineering the software" that have nothing to do with distribution.
>
>
>
> Close-source software could automatically be considered "protected",
>
> but that is only out of kindness. Publishing software, even
>
> closed-source software opens a company to some level
>
> reverse-engineering by the nature of computers and by the fact that
>
> the techniques of turning machine code into assembly are well known.
>
> So they explicitly state that they do not give permission to do so,
>
> yet this is not worth much of anything except for the fact that most
>
> people are intimidated to go against a large software company to argue
>
> their rights.
>
>
>
> Apparently these companies have already seen this loophole and have
>
> made things like DRM to put a legalistic container around what would
>
> otherwise be de facto published (machine) code. But this is not a
>
> legit workaround either and companies have essentially stealing from
>
> the intellectual and creative communities.
>
>
>
> There is no legitimate argument against a personal user figuring out
>
> how software works for personal use. If they don't want people to
>
> "figure it out", they'll have to open stores where people can run
>
> their special software on machines that are under their control.
>
>
>
> I'm sorry, this is just the way it is -- everyone's just gone along
>
> with the program tacitly because they get intimidated by the legal
>
> system. But the law is for people, not for lawyers.
Preach on my brother, Preach on! It's amazing how much control you can leverage on the populace of lemmings from a few well placed tv ads and some OP-ED propaganda.
More information about the Python-list
mailing list