4 ms·

Is it really plagiarism if you explicitly allow them to use and even sell your code, though? Also, plagiarism implies they don't give you credit and instead put

Is it really plagiarism if you explicitly allow them to use and even sell your code, though? Also, plagiarism implies they don't give you credit and instead put their own name on it.

burntsushi 6y ago
The definition of plagiarism isn't connected to laws, so yes, it is. Intentionally taking someone else's work and passing it off as your own is bad juju through and through. And even if I kept my code under copyright with an attribution license, not all forms of plagiarism would necessarily violate the copyright. For example, ideas and facts generally can't be copyrighted, but one could imagine cases where they can be plagiarized. So even if I did use a license that requires attribution, that only works insomuch as plagiarism is a violation of copyright. And as we all know, there is a ton of grey area there. But regardless of the grey area, the plagiarism itself is still unethical. Some interesting bits are here: https://www.plagiarism.org/blog/2017/10/27/is-plagiarism-illegal https://www.plagiarism.org/blog/2017/10/27/is-plagiarism-ill...
- wolco2 6y ago
  Are people passing it off as their work? If I buy a copy of a wp theme and use it am I passing it off as my own work and would it be called plagiarism?
  - burntsushi 6y ago
    Is it really necessary to dig into a tit-for-tat war on definitions here? I think plagiarism has a plain enough meaning for my argument here. People can argue about special cases or the edges, but disagreement there needn't invalidate my whole argument.
- sauerbraten 6y ago
  Okay I get what you mean now, I looked at it from a legality POV. I agree with you that plagiarism might not be illegal but still unethical. Why do you not just pick a license that forbids uses not compatible with your ethical standpoint, and chose to just not enforce the terms should they be violated? This way, companies are likely to respect your intent and preference and you don't have to make use of a legal system you don't support.
  - burntsushi 6y ago
    Just to pop up a level here, we're moving beyond my initial argument with the top poster here I think. I took issue with saying that it was "common sense" to use a license that prohibited things you didn't like. My argument is that you might actually intentionally not do that because there is nuance here that common sense shouldn't and couldn't paper over. > Why do you not just pick a license that forbids uses not compatible with your ethical standpoint, and chose to just not enforce the terms should they be violated? This way, companies are likely to respect your intent and preference and you don't have to make use of a legal system you don't support. I think that leads to a lot of grey area in terms of what people are and aren't allowed to do with my code. It also kind of presumes that I would ever try to enforce anything, which is itself not just an ideological decision but a decision to be made in light of costs and resources and will. Since we're now getting deeper into what I personally do, I'll note that in practice, I dual license under the UNLICENSE and the MIT. I use the UNLICENSE because it's goal is to explicitly disclaim monopoly copyright interest while attempting to be a public domain dedication. I also add the MIT because some folks stopped using my code when I only used the UNLICENSE because they were too risk averse and wanted a more established license.
    - pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
      > I took issue with saying that it was "common sense" to use a license that prohibited things you didn't like Not a good characterization of the argument. It's a matter of negative rights vs. positive rights. The original commenter's argument was cogent. In copyright, the default is that no one has rights to your creations but you. In licensing it as open source, you're broadening what others can do with it. It's an active choice. If granting someone X could result in them doing X where they otherwise wouldn't, and you'd be uncomfortable with that, then don't go out and invite people to do X. The hackneyed "common sense ain't so common" aphorism is certainly something to avoid though.
      - burntsushi 6y ago
        I don't see how that's not a good characterization. That's almost literally what was said: > Yes, folks, if you don't like the idea of a corporation taking your ("software-as-a-service") code and using it to create and sell proprietary products, then maybe don't license your code under the MIT License (or any of the others which explicitly allow exactly that)! As for: > In copyright, the default is that no one has rights to your creations but you. In licensing it as open source, you're broadening what others can do with it. It's an active choice. If granting someone X could result in them doing X where they otherwise wouldn't, and you'd be uncomfortable with that, then don't go out and invite people to do X. Well, I don't think giving people a legal grant to do X is inviting them to do X, especially in the context of permissive licenses or public domain dedications. Otherwise, you could accuse me of inviting people to do X for any value of X, no matter how pernicious.

Is it really plagiarism if you explicitly allow them to use and even sell your code, though? Also, plagiarism implies they don't give you credit and instead put their own name on it.

burntsushi 6y ago

The definition of plagiarism isn't connected to laws, so yes, it is. Intentionally taking someone else's work and passing it off as your own is bad juju through and through. And even if I kept my code under copyright with an attribution license, not all forms of plagiarism would necessarily violate the copyright. For example, ideas and facts generally can't be copyrighted, but one could imagine cases where they can be plagiarized. So even if I did use a license that requires attribution, that only works insomuch as plagiarism is a violation of copyright. And as we all know, there is a ton of grey area there. But regardless of the grey area, the plagiarism itself is still unethical. Some interesting bits are here: https://www.plagiarism.org/blog/2017/10/27/is-plagiarism-illegal https://www.plagiarism.org/blog/2017/10/27/is-plagiarism-ill...

wolco2 6y ago
Are people passing it off as their work? If I buy a copy of a wp theme and use it am I passing it off as my own work and would it be called plagiarism?
- burntsushi 6y ago
  Is it really necessary to dig into a tit-for-tat war on definitions here? I think plagiarism has a plain enough meaning for my argument here. People can argue about special cases or the edges, but disagreement there needn't invalidate my whole argument.
sauerbraten 6y ago
Okay I get what you mean now, I looked at it from a legality POV. I agree with you that plagiarism might not be illegal but still unethical. Why do you not just pick a license that forbids uses not compatible with your ethical standpoint, and chose to just not enforce the terms should they be violated? This way, companies are likely to respect your intent and preference and you don't have to make use of a legal system you don't support.
- burntsushi 6y ago
  Just to pop up a level here, we're moving beyond my initial argument with the top poster here I think. I took issue with saying that it was "common sense" to use a license that prohibited things you didn't like. My argument is that you might actually intentionally not do that because there is nuance here that common sense shouldn't and couldn't paper over. > Why do you not just pick a license that forbids uses not compatible with your ethical standpoint, and chose to just not enforce the terms should they be violated? This way, companies are likely to respect your intent and preference and you don't have to make use of a legal system you don't support. I think that leads to a lot of grey area in terms of what people are and aren't allowed to do with my code. It also kind of presumes that I would ever try to enforce anything, which is itself not just an ideological decision but a decision to be made in light of costs and resources and will. Since we're now getting deeper into what I personally do, I'll note that in practice, I dual license under the UNLICENSE and the MIT. I use the UNLICENSE because it's goal is to explicitly disclaim monopoly copyright interest while attempting to be a public domain dedication. I also add the MIT because some folks stopped using my code when I only used the UNLICENSE because they were too risk averse and wanted a more established license.
  - pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
    > I took issue with saying that it was "common sense" to use a license that prohibited things you didn't like Not a good characterization of the argument. It's a matter of negative rights vs. positive rights. The original commenter's argument was cogent. In copyright, the default is that no one has rights to your creations but you. In licensing it as open source, you're broadening what others can do with it. It's an active choice. If granting someone X could result in them doing X where they otherwise wouldn't, and you'd be uncomfortable with that, then don't go out and invite people to do X. The hackneyed "common sense ain't so common" aphorism is certainly something to avoid though.
    - burntsushi 6y ago
      I don't see how that's not a good characterization. That's almost literally what was said: > Yes, folks, if you don't like the idea of a corporation taking your ("software-as-a-service") code and using it to create and sell proprietary products, then maybe don't license your code under the MIT License (or any of the others which explicitly allow exactly that)! As for: > In copyright, the default is that no one has rights to your creations but you. In licensing it as open source, you're broadening what others can do with it. It's an active choice. If granting someone X could result in them doing X where they otherwise wouldn't, and you'd be uncomfortable with that, then don't go out and invite people to do X. Well, I don't think giving people a legal grant to do X is inviting them to do X, especially in the context of permissive licenses or public domain dedications. Otherwise, you could accuse me of inviting people to do X for any value of X, no matter how pernicious.