5 ms·

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

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.
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        This is a tangent but there's nothing wrong with buying a fake. So you can have a good faith belief that it was a counterfeit, which can protect you somewhat in the case that it was stolen.
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?

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.
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        This is a tangent but there's nothing wrong with buying a fake. So you can have a good faith belief that it was a counterfeit, which can protect you somewhat in the case that it was stolen.

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?