7 ms·

This makes me wonder: has any judge ruled in favor of a plaintiff seeking compensation from people that used or redistributed software that he published on the

by seri4l 4y ago

This makes me wonder: has any judge ruled in favor of a plaintiff seeking compensation from people that used or redistributed software that he published on the internet for free without any copyright notice or disclaimer?

topkai22 4y ago
I was thinking the same. It being published on GitHub makes it especially difficult to claim damages for reuse, as I think it’s fair to say the very act of publishing to GitHub implies a desire to share the code. The real issue would be if the author decides they want to close source it later, updates the license, and then demands everyone stop using it.
- lionkor 4y ago
  > the very act of publishing to GitHub implies a desire to share the code. No. Thats like saying the very act of sharing pictures online implies you want someone else to use them, or that printing your book and selling it somehow implies you want the world to copy it. You share on GitHub because its a source control platform, and your code may be interesting to others. This does NOT mean that you are okay with someone taking the code and using it in their (potentially commercial) program. That is NOT implied, and thats why licenses exist. You could even argue that, as GitHub has license detection etc. built in, sharing and reading code there should mean you are aware of licensing.
  - ormaaj 4y ago
    > No. Thats like saying the very act of sharing pictures online implies you want someone else to use them, or that printing your book and selling it somehow implies you want the world to copy it. Please explain how you are viewing this unlicensed reply without downloading it. > You share on GitHub because its a source control platform, and your code may be interesting to others. This does NOT mean that you are okay with someone taking the code and using it in their (potentially commercial) program. Please explain how HN is not taking my unlicensed reply and using it in their commercial HTML code sent to your web browser.
    - Dagonfly 4y ago
      > Please explain how HN is not taking my unlicensed reply and using it in their commercial HTML code sent to your web browser Nothing unlicensed about your reply. From HN's Terms of Use: > By uploading any User Content you hereby grant and will grant Y Combinator and its affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sublicensable, perpetual, irrevocable license to copy, display, upload, perform, distribute, store, modify and otherwise use your User Content for any Y Combinator-related purpose in any form, medium or technology now known or later developed
      - ormaaj 4y ago
        Yes a standard agreement such as that is expected and customary, and they have it for good reasons. However it is not strictly required in order to make use of user-submitted content. Also as I have pointed out in other comments, this is a contract, and as such there are quite a few reasons that a contract like this might not be binding. One major weakness is its semblance to a "click through agreement". An agreement hidden in the footer of a website or in the fine print on a registration page is even more subtle than that and it's entirely possible build a case against implicit agreements that automatically kick in through mere use of a web service. There is considerable case law devoted to this and it's gone both ways - depending on the specific facts of the case, who makes the better argument, and the disposition of the judge.
  - kuschku 4y ago
    By uploading code to GitHub, you actually agree to certain terms which imply some level of sharing. You allow forking, and you allow any GitHub user to fork, reproduce and modify your code on GitHub. Now, obviously, that doesn't necessarily imply that you grant the user the right to do the same outside of GitHub.
- Sakos 4y ago
  Uh, what. Just because something is available for public viewing does NOT mean you have an unlimited right to reproduce and/or modify that work in any way. In fact, in much of the Western world, the creator of anything and everything is automatically granted complete ownership and control over their work, and publishing it does NOT grant any rights to that work beyond viewing it. This applies to code, pictures, books/stories, videos, etc.
- slowmovintarget 4y ago
  The Amazon package was on the front porch for like two hours... There was nothing that said it wasn't available to anyone outside the house. It's like they wanted us to take it. A work with no license file is private by default, even if you can see it.
  - ormaaj 4y ago
    Wrong. If the work were unpublished however then that would be a very different situation.
    - colejohnson66 4y ago
      They’re not wrong. In countries with implicit copyright (those following TRIPS[0]), barring any license to the contrary, you have no right to the copyrighted work published online. In other words, unlicensed code is “all rights reserved, no exceptions.” [0]: TRIPS Article 9 Section 1: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Trade-Related_Aspects_of_Intellectual_Property_Rights https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Trade-Related_As...
      - ormaaj 4y ago
        There are numerous rights and exceptions. Which exceptions apply vary by country and I can't speak for all countries, but virtually nothing in copyright law is strictly without exception. Unsurprisingly there's no shortage of people eager to convince you otherwise. As an aside it is very strange that so many people derive their understanding of copyright law from various international treaties. These very rarely come into play in actual U.S. copyright cases and have little influence over the way courts interpret the law.
  - topkai22 4y ago
    More like the Amazon package was left, opened, near the neighborhood book sharing drop where people customarily leave things to be taken for free. A person should be able to recover that package, law enforcement might help recover the package, but it is unlikely a DA would prosecute for theft, and it would be very difficult to win damages if recovered.

by seri4l 4y ago

topkai22 4y ago

I was thinking the same. It being published on GitHub makes it especially difficult to claim damages for reuse, as I think it’s fair to say the very act of publishing to GitHub implies a desire to share the code. The real issue would be if the author decides they want to close source it later, updates the license, and then demands everyone stop using it.

lionkor 4y ago
> the very act of publishing to GitHub implies a desire to share the code. No. Thats like saying the very act of sharing pictures online implies you want someone else to use them, or that printing your book and selling it somehow implies you want the world to copy it. You share on GitHub because its a source control platform, and your code may be interesting to others. This does NOT mean that you are okay with someone taking the code and using it in their (potentially commercial) program. That is NOT implied, and thats why licenses exist. You could even argue that, as GitHub has license detection etc. built in, sharing and reading code there should mean you are aware of licensing.
- ormaaj 4y ago
  > No. Thats like saying the very act of sharing pictures online implies you want someone else to use them, or that printing your book and selling it somehow implies you want the world to copy it. Please explain how you are viewing this unlicensed reply without downloading it. > You share on GitHub because its a source control platform, and your code may be interesting to others. This does NOT mean that you are okay with someone taking the code and using it in their (potentially commercial) program. Please explain how HN is not taking my unlicensed reply and using it in their commercial HTML code sent to your web browser.
  - Dagonfly 4y ago
    > Please explain how HN is not taking my unlicensed reply and using it in their commercial HTML code sent to your web browser Nothing unlicensed about your reply. From HN's Terms of Use: > By uploading any User Content you hereby grant and will grant Y Combinator and its affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sublicensable, perpetual, irrevocable license to copy, display, upload, perform, distribute, store, modify and otherwise use your User Content for any Y Combinator-related purpose in any form, medium or technology now known or later developed
    - ormaaj 4y ago
      Yes a standard agreement such as that is expected and customary, and they have it for good reasons. However it is not strictly required in order to make use of user-submitted content. Also as I have pointed out in other comments, this is a contract, and as such there are quite a few reasons that a contract like this might not be binding. One major weakness is its semblance to a "click through agreement". An agreement hidden in the footer of a website or in the fine print on a registration page is even more subtle than that and it's entirely possible build a case against implicit agreements that automatically kick in through mere use of a web service. There is considerable case law devoted to this and it's gone both ways - depending on the specific facts of the case, who makes the better argument, and the disposition of the judge.
- kuschku 4y ago
  By uploading code to GitHub, you actually agree to certain terms which imply some level of sharing. You allow forking, and you allow any GitHub user to fork, reproduce and modify your code on GitHub. Now, obviously, that doesn't necessarily imply that you grant the user the right to do the same outside of GitHub.
Sakos 4y ago
Uh, what. Just because something is available for public viewing does NOT mean you have an unlimited right to reproduce and/or modify that work in any way. In fact, in much of the Western world, the creator of anything and everything is automatically granted complete ownership and control over their work, and publishing it does NOT grant any rights to that work beyond viewing it. This applies to code, pictures, books/stories, videos, etc.
slowmovintarget 4y ago
The Amazon package was on the front porch for like two hours... There was nothing that said it wasn't available to anyone outside the house. It's like they wanted us to take it. A work with no license file is private by default, even if you can see it.
- ormaaj 4y ago
  Wrong. If the work were unpublished however then that would be a very different situation.
  - colejohnson66 4y ago
    They’re not wrong. In countries with implicit copyright (those following TRIPS[0]), barring any license to the contrary, you have no right to the copyrighted work published online. In other words, unlicensed code is “all rights reserved, no exceptions.” [0]: TRIPS Article 9 Section 1: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Trade-Related_Aspects_of_Intellectual_Property_Rights https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Trade-Related_As...
    - ormaaj 4y ago
      There are numerous rights and exceptions. Which exceptions apply vary by country and I can't speak for all countries, but virtually nothing in copyright law is strictly without exception. Unsurprisingly there's no shortage of people eager to convince you otherwise. As an aside it is very strange that so many people derive their understanding of copyright law from various international treaties. These very rarely come into play in actual U.S. copyright cases and have little influence over the way courts interpret the law.
- topkai22 4y ago
  More like the Amazon package was left, opened, near the neighborhood book sharing drop where people customarily leave things to be taken for free. A person should be able to recover that package, law enforcement might help recover the package, but it is unlikely a DA would prosecute for theft, and it would be very difficult to win damages if recovered.