4 ms·

So there is no grant of copyright to distribute copies of the dependency, but what about useyright? The dependant project just uses the the dependency to run a

by Y_Y 5y ago

So there is no grant of copyright to distribute copies of the dependency, but what about useyright? The dependant project just uses the the dependency to run a test. Supposing it didn't distribute it as part of the release, is that still allowable?

boomboomsubban 5y ago
The conflicting license states >I do not give anyone permissions to use this tool for any purpose. Don't use it. So no use rights either.
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago
  Copyright does not give authority over use, only over redistribution.
- Y_Y 5y ago
  But the granting of rights to redistribute is governed by the applicable copyright law, as far as I know there is no equivalent body of law governing usage. You can't give someone information but attach conditions to its use, except in specific circumstances. You can certainly make someone sign a contract before agreeing to give them the information, but that's not what's occurring here.
  - JackFr 5y ago
    IANAL but these specific circumstances of ‘use’ typically include copyrighted music and drama, which cannot be performed in a public or commercial setting without permission or compensation. The Beatles may own Yesterday but they can’t stop me from whistling it. Where I think this case gets murky is that the item in question is not distributed or used by users of the software, but is part of the production process for it.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    >You can't give someone information but attach conditions to its use, except in specific circumstances. Wouldn't that effectively bar the use of DRM? If I buy a blu-ray, I can't legally watch it unless I have a player capable of unlocking the content. That may be one of the "specific circumstances," as there is a law that specifically forbids bypassing DRM.
    - concordDance 5y ago
      > If I buy a blu-ray, I can't legally watch it unless I have a player capable of unlocking the content Depends on jurisdiction.
  - michaelt 5y ago
    I have heard lawyers argue that, because to run a computer program (or play a DVD or whatever) it must be copied into memory, software that doesn't grant you the right to use it cannot legally be used.
    - gpm 5y ago
      This argument doesn't make sense to me (under US law) given that > (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: > (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117
      - mrpimpunicorn 5y ago
        (a) doesn't hold because you aren't the owner of a copyrighted work that is licensed to you. You're also not even being given a license in this context. Read GitHub's TOS, they explicitly state you give them the right to copy your work in order to allow for forking because their lawyers KNOW they have no rights otherwise and could be sued.
        gpm 5y ago
        (a) doesn't refer to owning the copyright, it refers to owning the physical copy (the hardware which the information is saved on, the paper and ink in a book). GitHub's TOS requires permission to copy, because github is not just executing your code.
  - cxr 5y ago
    > as far as I know there is no equivalent body of law governing usage. You can't give someone information but attach conditions to its use There is, and you can. It's called patent law. If the author of this license also had a patent, they could deny others the ability to use it. But unlike copyright, you are not automatically granted a patent for your creations.
  - snowwrestler 5y ago
    Copyright law governs the right to generate and use copies of a work, whether they are for distribution or your own use. It’s right there in the name: “copy” right. If you can figure out how to use software code that someone else wrote, without making your own copy of it first, I suppose that would not be in violation. I’m not aware of any way to do that, though.
- JackFr 5y ago
  If I put up a message on a billboard, with a copyright notice denying the permission to read it aloud, would that be legitimate license?
  - Thiez 5y ago
    It would be a silly license. I imagine reading aloud a message on a billboard would be ruled fair use. Republishing of your message by an unauthorized party could be infringement, but your license doesn't change that; the default ("no license") is "all rights reserved" so redistribution is already forbidden.
- drexlspivey 5y ago
  Does that make it law? What if he typed “Every time you run this code you owe me 5 bucks” ?

by Y_Y 5y ago

boomboomsubban 5y ago

The conflicting license states >I do not give anyone permissions to use this tool for any purpose. Don't use it. So no use rights either.

TheCoelacanth 5y ago
Copyright does not give authority over use, only over redistribution.
Y_Y 5y ago
But the granting of rights to redistribute is governed by the applicable copyright law, as far as I know there is no equivalent body of law governing usage. You can't give someone information but attach conditions to its use, except in specific circumstances. You can certainly make someone sign a contract before agreeing to give them the information, but that's not what's occurring here.
- JackFr 5y ago
  IANAL but these specific circumstances of ‘use’ typically include copyrighted music and drama, which cannot be performed in a public or commercial setting without permission or compensation. The Beatles may own Yesterday but they can’t stop me from whistling it. Where I think this case gets murky is that the item in question is not distributed or used by users of the software, but is part of the production process for it.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  >You can't give someone information but attach conditions to its use, except in specific circumstances. Wouldn't that effectively bar the use of DRM? If I buy a blu-ray, I can't legally watch it unless I have a player capable of unlocking the content. That may be one of the "specific circumstances," as there is a law that specifically forbids bypassing DRM.
  - concordDance 5y ago
    > If I buy a blu-ray, I can't legally watch it unless I have a player capable of unlocking the content Depends on jurisdiction.
- michaelt 5y ago
  I have heard lawyers argue that, because to run a computer program (or play a DVD or whatever) it must be copied into memory, software that doesn't grant you the right to use it cannot legally be used.
  - gpm 5y ago
    This argument doesn't make sense to me (under US law) given that > (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: > (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117
    - mrpimpunicorn 5y ago
      (a) doesn't hold because you aren't the owner of a copyrighted work that is licensed to you. You're also not even being given a license in this context. Read GitHub's TOS, they explicitly state you give them the right to copy your work in order to allow for forking because their lawyers KNOW they have no rights otherwise and could be sued.
      - gpm 5y ago
        (a) doesn't refer to owning the copyright, it refers to owning the physical copy (the hardware which the information is saved on, the paper and ink in a book). GitHub's TOS requires permission to copy, because github is not just executing your code.
- cxr 5y ago
  > as far as I know there is no equivalent body of law governing usage. You can't give someone information but attach conditions to its use There is, and you can. It's called patent law. If the author of this license also had a patent, they could deny others the ability to use it. But unlike copyright, you are not automatically granted a patent for your creations.
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  Copyright law governs the right to generate and use copies of a work, whether they are for distribution or your own use. It’s right there in the name: “copy” right. If you can figure out how to use software code that someone else wrote, without making your own copy of it first, I suppose that would not be in violation. I’m not aware of any way to do that, though.
JackFr 5y ago
If I put up a message on a billboard, with a copyright notice denying the permission to read it aloud, would that be legitimate license?
- Thiez 5y ago
  It would be a silly license. I imagine reading aloud a message on a billboard would be ruled fair use. Republishing of your message by an unauthorized party could be infringement, but your license doesn't change that; the default ("no license") is "all rights reserved" so redistribution is already forbidden.
drexlspivey 5y ago
Does that make it law? What if he typed “Every time you run this code you owe me 5 bucks” ?