7 ms·

If their code is proprietary, no one can use it. Even if they accidentally uploaded it to a public site.

by Mikeb85 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
kzrdude 8y ago
Has it been tested in court? :)
- icebraining 8y ago
  Yes, of course.
Scoundreller 8y ago
I’m not sure how universally true that is. When governments fail to redact documents, it’s on them. If you “accidentally” talk to a reporter about your solicitor-privileged comms, it’s not privileged anymore.
- JeremyBanks 8y ago
  This isn't an open question. If you don't have a license from the copyright holder, you can't legally use it, except for fair use exemptions: perhaps you could write a blog post criticizing it.
  - y4mi 8y ago
    Thats only true for the US and the countries adhering to US copyright. It's not universally true
    - JeremyBanks 8y ago
      It's not "US copyright", it's several international copyright treaties, which 90% of all nations have agreed to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention The few exceptions are where copyright essentially doesn't exist at all. Where it does, this is how it works.
      - HenryBemis 8y ago
        As someone above posted the wider "List of parties to international copyright agreements", this is one of the boxes that need to be ticked prior to signing any form of deal between countries. It's a kind of 'fundamental' in order to start doing business with that country (or for the country to be taken seriously).
      - anticensor 8y ago
        DPRK only recognises foreign copyrights, and have no concept of IP for its own works (because everything is done to superior order, there is no creativity allowed). Micronesia does not have copyright, but has even stricter regime of creative works, amounting to a patent-like protection.
  - zaphirplane 8y ago
    Was there a licence attached to the files? What if there wasn’t
    - detaro 8y ago
      > If you don't have a license from the copyright holder, you can't legally use it, except for fair use exemptions: perhaps you could write a blog post criticizing it.
      - benj111 8y ago
        Theres nuance though, that copypasting a previous comment doesn't answer. What about public domain works for example? Or you had a good faith belief you had permission from the copyright holder, eg someone misrepresented themselves as the copyright holder, or the copyright holder published the code in public without a copyright notice?
        v_lisivka 8y ago
        I have good faith belief that all software on torrent trackers are in public domain or had permission from the copyright holder.
        v_lisivka 8y ago
        As you see, it doesn't change anything: I will be downvoted, then sued, then jailed despite my beliefs.
        benj111 8y ago
        That isn't demonstrating a good faith belief. Buying a Rolex from some guy in a car park is different to buying one from a jewelers. The former wouldn't protect you in any way, the later would let you demonstrate a good faith belief that it wasn't stolen, and wasn't fake.
        8y ago
  - Scoundreller 8y ago
    We're talking about code. Which is more like a recipe than a novel. If Coca Cola writes down its proprietary recipe on their entrance "by mistake", I can definitely make use of it. Maybe I can't photocopy it for sale, but I can definitely re-use their previously-secret techniques. I can even say I got it from them through their own error and have the exact same outputs for the exact same inputs. Trade secrets aren't your secret anymore once you publish them. All we know in this case is that copyright law was used as a tool to remove it.
    - gowld 8y ago
      > Which is more like a recipe than a novel. Courts strongly disagree with you.
      - Scoundreller 8y ago
        Do they? If you reverse engineer a system and write a spec using clean-room technique, it's going to be massively easier for the team to do it if they have lawful access to the no-longer proprietary source code. And wouldn't that be the method to re-create your own copyrightable implementation of GPL code too?
devoply 8y ago
Absolutely not true. Anyone that lives in a country whose legal system does not respect their copyright can use it.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Basically every country has signed a treaty saying their legal system does respect them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_agreements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_internation... If you're saying any country where they don't respect it in practice, then sure.
- MagicPropmaker 8y ago
  And if it's protected as a "trade secret" and not a copyright (or patent) then you probably can use it without question.
  - ufo 8y ago
    Software is copyrighted "by default". You don't need to apply for copyright like you would need to do with a patent.
    - MagicPropmaker 8y ago
      https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/international-protection/trade-secrets-policy https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/international-... USPTO explanation of difference between a Patent, Copyright, and Trade Secret.
      - detaro 8y ago
        The software could contain a trade secret, and someone could discover it from reading the source (e.g. the banks magic evaluation function for credit ratings, or their trading strategy, or ...). That doesn't grant them any protected right on the software, which is protected by copyright.
thaumasiotes 8y ago
> If their code is proprietary, no one can use it. Even if they accidentally uploaded it to a public site. Surely this depends on the terms under which they uploaded it. I would expect npm to have a legal structure in place under which code you upload for public use is also licensed for public use.
- crooked-v 8y ago
  > I would expect npm to have a legal structure in place under which code you upload for public use is also licensed for public use. Not how it works. For example, see the license field here: https://www.npmjs.com/package/unlicensed https://www.npmjs.com/package/unlicensed
  - isostatic 8y ago
    That would be the "terms under which they uploaded it" NPM doesn't appear to have a "default license" though, so that would be "no license", therefore normal copyright law would seem to apply, and you can't make a copy of it, and more than you can copy a picture on a billboard or a blog post or whatever.
- benj111 8y ago
  IANAL but if someone makes code publicly available (for 3 years). Then isn't there an argument to be made that its reasonable to make use of it? Probably not redistribute it, but use it at least. So I'm not even sure an explicit upload license would be required.
  - tylersmith 8y ago
    If you leave your keys in your car for 3 years it's still illegal for me to take a joy ride in it. I don't personally believe in/support the concept of IP but in a world that does (like the US) it doesn't make sense to me that people being able to see your property for 3 years gives them the right to use it.
    - 8y ago
tombert 8y ago
I know that, but is the issue that companies are using the code or that NPM, Cloudflare, and Amazon are hosting the repo?
shawnz 8y ago
What if the public site states in their terms that they must be granted those rights on the uploaded material, and the actual copyright holder is the one who does the uploading (but accidentally)?

If their code is proprietary, no one can use it. Even if they accidentally uploaded it to a public site.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

kzrdude 8y ago

Has it been tested in court? :)

icebraining 8y ago
Yes, of course.

Scoundreller 8y ago

I’m not sure how universally true that is. When governments fail to redact documents, it’s on them. If you “accidentally” talk to a reporter about your solicitor-privileged comms, it’s not privileged anymore.

JeremyBanks 8y ago
This isn't an open question. If you don't have a license from the copyright holder, you can't legally use it, except for fair use exemptions: perhaps you could write a blog post criticizing it.
- y4mi 8y ago
  Thats only true for the US and the countries adhering to US copyright. It's not universally true
  - JeremyBanks 8y ago
    It's not "US copyright", it's several international copyright treaties, which 90% of all nations have agreed to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention The few exceptions are where copyright essentially doesn't exist at all. Where it does, this is how it works.
    - HenryBemis 8y ago
      As someone above posted the wider "List of parties to international copyright agreements", this is one of the boxes that need to be ticked prior to signing any form of deal between countries. It's a kind of 'fundamental' in order to start doing business with that country (or for the country to be taken seriously).
    - anticensor 8y ago
      DPRK only recognises foreign copyrights, and have no concept of IP for its own works (because everything is done to superior order, there is no creativity allowed). Micronesia does not have copyright, but has even stricter regime of creative works, amounting to a patent-like protection.
- zaphirplane 8y ago
  Was there a licence attached to the files? What if there wasn’t
  - detaro 8y ago
    > If you don't have a license from the copyright holder, you can't legally use it, except for fair use exemptions: perhaps you could write a blog post criticizing it.
    - benj111 8y ago
      Theres nuance though, that copypasting a previous comment doesn't answer. What about public domain works for example? Or you had a good faith belief you had permission from the copyright holder, eg someone misrepresented themselves as the copyright holder, or the copyright holder published the code in public without a copyright notice?
      - v_lisivka 8y ago
        I have good faith belief that all software on torrent trackers are in public domain or had permission from the copyright holder.
        v_lisivka 8y ago
        As you see, it doesn't change anything: I will be downvoted, then sued, then jailed despite my beliefs.
        benj111 8y ago
        That isn't demonstrating a good faith belief. Buying a Rolex from some guy in a car park is different to buying one from a jewelers. The former wouldn't protect you in any way, the later would let you demonstrate a good faith belief that it wasn't stolen, and wasn't fake.
        8y ago
- Scoundreller 8y ago
  We're talking about code. Which is more like a recipe than a novel. If Coca Cola writes down its proprietary recipe on their entrance "by mistake", I can definitely make use of it. Maybe I can't photocopy it for sale, but I can definitely re-use their previously-secret techniques. I can even say I got it from them through their own error and have the exact same outputs for the exact same inputs. Trade secrets aren't your secret anymore once you publish them. All we know in this case is that copyright law was used as a tool to remove it.
  - gowld 8y ago
    > Which is more like a recipe than a novel. Courts strongly disagree with you.
    - Scoundreller 8y ago
      Do they? If you reverse engineer a system and write a spec using clean-room technique, it's going to be massively easier for the team to do it if they have lawful access to the no-longer proprietary source code. And wouldn't that be the method to re-create your own copyrightable implementation of GPL code too?

devoply 8y ago

Absolutely not true. Anyone that lives in a country whose legal system does not respect their copyright can use it.

icebraining 8y ago
Basically every country has signed a treaty saying their legal system does respect them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_agreements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_internation... If you're saying any country where they don't respect it in practice, then sure.
MagicPropmaker 8y ago
And if it's protected as a "trade secret" and not a copyright (or patent) then you probably can use it without question.
- ufo 8y ago
  Software is copyrighted "by default". You don't need to apply for copyright like you would need to do with a patent.
  - MagicPropmaker 8y ago
    https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/international-protection/trade-secrets-policy https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/international-... USPTO explanation of difference between a Patent, Copyright, and Trade Secret.
    - detaro 8y ago
      The software could contain a trade secret, and someone could discover it from reading the source (e.g. the banks magic evaluation function for credit ratings, or their trading strategy, or ...). That doesn't grant them any protected right on the software, which is protected by copyright.

thaumasiotes 8y ago

> If their code is proprietary, no one can use it. Even if they accidentally uploaded it to a public site. Surely this depends on the terms under which they uploaded it. I would expect npm to have a legal structure in place under which code you upload for public use is also licensed for public use.

crooked-v 8y ago
> I would expect npm to have a legal structure in place under which code you upload for public use is also licensed for public use. Not how it works. For example, see the license field here: https://www.npmjs.com/package/unlicensed https://www.npmjs.com/package/unlicensed
- isostatic 8y ago
  That would be the "terms under which they uploaded it" NPM doesn't appear to have a "default license" though, so that would be "no license", therefore normal copyright law would seem to apply, and you can't make a copy of it, and more than you can copy a picture on a billboard or a blog post or whatever.
benj111 8y ago
IANAL but if someone makes code publicly available (for 3 years). Then isn't there an argument to be made that its reasonable to make use of it? Probably not redistribute it, but use it at least. So I'm not even sure an explicit upload license would be required.
- tylersmith 8y ago
  If you leave your keys in your car for 3 years it's still illegal for me to take a joy ride in it. I don't personally believe in/support the concept of IP but in a world that does (like the US) it doesn't make sense to me that people being able to see your property for 3 years gives them the right to use it.
  - 8y ago

tombert 8y ago

I know that, but is the issue that companies are using the code or that NPM, Cloudflare, and Amazon are hosting the repo?

shawnz 8y ago

What if the public site states in their terms that they must be granted those rights on the uploaded material, and the actual copyright holder is the one who does the uploading (but accidentally)?