3 ms·

I was hoping for a discussion of the “substantial portions” term. The explanation focuses on use as a dependency, but what if I take some MIT code and modify it

I was hoping for a discussion of the “substantial portions” term. The explanation focuses on use as a dependency, but what if I take some MIT code and modify it and include it directly in my project? What counts as “substantial portion”?

torstenvl 6y ago
In general it means "this applies to derivative works." At best, it might provide an argument that APIs aren't covered (now that that's a thing). But copyright law doesn't really recognize "substantial portion" as a term of art (though it's arguably related to one of the prongs of a Fair Use inquiry). IANYL but my personal practice is and would be to ignore the word "substantial."
- CameronNemo 6y ago
  So if I copy a 3 line example off stackoverflow I may need to add a license disclaimer... Wow.
  - greggyb 6y ago
    It depends on SO's terms of use. Without any terms to the contrary, which I am confident exist, you would be violating copyright by copying that example, regardless of attribution. Assuming the example is the original work of the author of the post (and again, assuming no other terms), then that post author would hold copyright to the work. You would have no license to copy or distribute it. I have great confidence that SO's terms include a section wherein contributors grant license or grant copyright to SO. At that point (again, assuming no other terms), you would still have no right or license to copy or distribute the work. Assuming SO has a very permissive license to the work, including the ability to re-license it, they can grant you a license to copy or distribute the work. At that point you are bound by the terms of the license SO grants you. Read the terms to get specifics.
  - njharman 6y ago
    Read the SO TOS. Probably can't legally include that unless SO gives you license. Thanks to the 197? Law that provided automatic copyright the instant anyone says or does anything copyrightable. I'm sure SO TOS states by using this site you assign or grant copyrights to SO. Same as HN and any site otherwise they'd be liable for reproducing what I wrote in this comment which in USA is automatically copyrighted to me the moment I hit "reply".

torstenvl 6y ago

In general it means "this applies to derivative works." At best, it might provide an argument that APIs aren't covered (now that that's a thing). But copyright law doesn't really recognize "substantial portion" as a term of art (though it's arguably related to one of the prongs of a Fair Use inquiry). IANYL but my personal practice is and would be to ignore the word "substantial."

CameronNemo 6y ago
So if I copy a 3 line example off stackoverflow I may need to add a license disclaimer... Wow.
- greggyb 6y ago
  It depends on SO's terms of use. Without any terms to the contrary, which I am confident exist, you would be violating copyright by copying that example, regardless of attribution. Assuming the example is the original work of the author of the post (and again, assuming no other terms), then that post author would hold copyright to the work. You would have no license to copy or distribute it. I have great confidence that SO's terms include a section wherein contributors grant license or grant copyright to SO. At that point (again, assuming no other terms), you would still have no right or license to copy or distribute the work. Assuming SO has a very permissive license to the work, including the ability to re-license it, they can grant you a license to copy or distribute the work. At that point you are bound by the terms of the license SO grants you. Read the terms to get specifics.
- njharman 6y ago
  Read the SO TOS. Probably can't legally include that unless SO gives you license. Thanks to the 197? Law that provided automatic copyright the instant anyone says or does anything copyrightable. I'm sure SO TOS states by using this site you assign or grant copyrights to SO. Same as HN and any site otherwise they'd be liable for reproducing what I wrote in this comment which in USA is automatically copyrighted to me the moment I hit "reply".