8 ms·

At what point does something enter the public domain, though? (I know the Disney/Sonny Bono 70-odd years rule for copyrights, but this seems different) If an a

At what point does something enter the public domain, though? (I know the Disney/Sonny Bono 70-odd years rule for copyrights, but this seems different) If an algorithmic trading company that is killing it happens to mistakenly leave a link to the copyrighted source code, can I use it? What if they publish their algorithm on the front page with no explanation? What if they publish it on the front page with a note saying "Free, take it!" but then retract that, saying it was a rogue employee? What if the CEO sends it to the WSJ or posts it to a comment box on another site? What if they make t-shirts with it, and a huge banner on the side of their building? Basically, at what point of ridiculousness does the protection break down (if any)?

marshray 14y ago
You're conflating copyright on the text of the source code with the algorithm itself. Go read a little about the differences between copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and patents. It's not that hard to get the basic ideas.
tantalor 14y ago
> Basically, at what point of ridiculousness does the protection break down (if any)? It never goes away (modulo expiration). The copyright owner has to grant an explicit license. Usually you get one by paying a fee. Last week a non-free documentary about Minecraft was seeded on BitTorrent by the owners. It was implied, but they never included an explicit license, so it was unclear whether downloading and seeding it was a copyright violation. In the case of shareware, the copyright holder grants a universal license for distribution.
alanctgardner2 14y ago
The law, contrary to what people in this thread have been saying, recognizes intent. It's the same principle as the recent, controversial ruling about the AT&T data leak. Yes, AT&T should have taken better steps to secure their data. But you retain control over even implicitly private data. Technical measures like DRM and passwords help to cement the intent, and impede people who would ignore a written warning. In this case it's probably buried in the EULA for the non-activation version that you still need a valid CS2 license. While not all EULAs are enforcable, this seems like a pretty clear case where that condition would be upheld in court. Your examples are all a bit silly, because that's what we have licenses for. In general, I would say if you found code with no license, or code being made available contrary to the license in the headers, it's not suitable for including in any project. I think a court would agree that a reasonable developer, finding what looks like proprietary code with no license attached, should not copy or derive code from that sample. The t-shirts and huge banner are a funny case, because if you consider Oracle v Google ( or any other IP case involving open source ), it's entirely possible to make code available and retain control over it. Hell, even copyleft licenses are based on the idea that you can distribute something but legally restrict it's use. In short, if you make a creative work you have broad control over how it's used, even if it's technically possible to use that work in ways you don't allow. In the absence of an explicit license, it's only safe to assume that you have no permission to use anything.
- bernardom 14y ago
  OK, that makes sense to me. The more I think about it, the licenses and passwords are just ways to keep people from stealing something that they don't have a right to use. Even though I can see what Mickey Mouse looks like, I can't make a t-shirt with his face on it and sell it. Even though I can see Adobe's source code, I can't use it without permission. Your copyleft note is very good as well, btw. I can see GNU source code, but there are still restrictions on use. Thanks!
- uxp 14y ago
  > I would say if you found code with no license, or code being made available contrary to the license in the headers, it's not suitable for including in any project. I think a court would agree that a reasonable developer, finding what looks like proprietary code with no license attached, should not copy or derive code from that sample. There was a recent article regarding code that is not explicitly licensed on GitHub, which pretty much parrots this notion: http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/github-needs-take-open-source-seriously-208046 http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/github-needs... Code without an explicit license is protected by copyright and is by default All Rights Reserved. The person or people who wrote the code are protected as such. Any time you're using software you didn't write, licensing should be considered and abided.
- wnight 14y ago
  How would the EULA be enforceable on software a user reasonably found? That's like a contact in a book you find on the bus. Without a sale the UCC won't apply... Copyright is called that because its about creating new copies, not reading an existing one.
  - alanctgardner2 14y ago
    How is the GPL enforcable? If you download code from Github, the copyright holder can restrict your usage, up to and including prohibiting anyone from using it. It's silly to conflate digital works with physical media, copyright properly refers to a creator's right to control and potentially profit from their intellectual property. edit: I find it funny that on one hand, when 'stealing' comes up, people who reject IP law say 'but it's not like physical objects, they still have it'. Then when licenses come up, it's like 'finding a book on a bus'.

marshray 14y ago

You're conflating copyright on the text of the source code with the algorithm itself. Go read a little about the differences between copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and patents. It's not that hard to get the basic ideas.

tantalor 14y ago

> Basically, at what point of ridiculousness does the protection break down (if any)? It never goes away (modulo expiration). The copyright owner has to grant an explicit license. Usually you get one by paying a fee. Last week a non-free documentary about Minecraft was seeded on BitTorrent by the owners. It was implied, but they never included an explicit license, so it was unclear whether downloading and seeding it was a copyright violation. In the case of shareware, the copyright holder grants a universal license for distribution.

alanctgardner2 14y ago

The law, contrary to what people in this thread have been saying, recognizes intent. It's the same principle as the recent, controversial ruling about the AT&T data leak. Yes, AT&T should have taken better steps to secure their data. But you retain control over even implicitly private data. Technical measures like DRM and passwords help to cement the intent, and impede people who would ignore a written warning. In this case it's probably buried in the EULA for the non-activation version that you still need a valid CS2 license. While not all EULAs are enforcable, this seems like a pretty clear case where that condition would be upheld in court. Your examples are all a bit silly, because that's what we have licenses for. In general, I would say if you found code with no license, or code being made available contrary to the license in the headers, it's not suitable for including in any project. I think a court would agree that a reasonable developer, finding what looks like proprietary code with no license attached, should not copy or derive code from that sample. The t-shirts and huge banner are a funny case, because if you consider Oracle v Google ( or any other IP case involving open source ), it's entirely possible to make code available and retain control over it. Hell, even copyleft licenses are based on the idea that you can distribute something but legally restrict it's use. In short, if you make a creative work you have broad control over how it's used, even if it's technically possible to use that work in ways you don't allow. In the absence of an explicit license, it's only safe to assume that you have no permission to use anything.

bernardom 14y ago
OK, that makes sense to me. The more I think about it, the licenses and passwords are just ways to keep people from stealing something that they don't have a right to use. Even though I can see what Mickey Mouse looks like, I can't make a t-shirt with his face on it and sell it. Even though I can see Adobe's source code, I can't use it without permission. Your copyleft note is very good as well, btw. I can see GNU source code, but there are still restrictions on use. Thanks!
uxp 14y ago
> I would say if you found code with no license, or code being made available contrary to the license in the headers, it's not suitable for including in any project. I think a court would agree that a reasonable developer, finding what looks like proprietary code with no license attached, should not copy or derive code from that sample. There was a recent article regarding code that is not explicitly licensed on GitHub, which pretty much parrots this notion: http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/github-needs-take-open-source-seriously-208046 http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/github-needs... Code without an explicit license is protected by copyright and is by default All Rights Reserved. The person or people who wrote the code are protected as such. Any time you're using software you didn't write, licensing should be considered and abided.
wnight 14y ago
How would the EULA be enforceable on software a user reasonably found? That's like a contact in a book you find on the bus. Without a sale the UCC won't apply... Copyright is called that because its about creating new copies, not reading an existing one.
- alanctgardner2 14y ago
  How is the GPL enforcable? If you download code from Github, the copyright holder can restrict your usage, up to and including prohibiting anyone from using it. It's silly to conflate digital works with physical media, copyright properly refers to a creator's right to control and potentially profit from their intellectual property. edit: I find it funny that on one hand, when 'stealing' comes up, people who reject IP law say 'but it's not like physical objects, they still have it'. Then when licenses come up, it's like 'finding a book on a bus'.