7 ms·

> While it may have been technically "right" to copy the code, it wouldn't have been worth the damage it would have caused to the person behind it. Well, I wil

> While it may have been technically "right" to copy the code, it wouldn't have been worth the damage it would have caused to the person behind it. Well, I will play the devil's advocate. If the code is useful to enough people, then there is damage to everyone else who might have benefited the port. What I understand from his comments is that he does not only not want you to use his implementation but also "his" algorithm as a basis to the port. Now assuming that he has an efficient algorithm to solve the problem, then he basically forbids other people from using the efficient algorithm. So the needs of the community's damage may in fact be more than the individual's. Also say the exact same thing happened with GNU toolchain, does the individual's damage still outweighs the community's? I would not bring this up if his tone in his comments wasn't arrogant despite the fact that he is at fault by not reading making any effort to understand the licence. EDIT: Can down voters care to comment?

acqq 12y ago
> If the code is useful to enough people, then there is damage to everyone else who might have benefited the port. So what? There exist enough codes which are licensed under some kind of "open source" license for which you still have to pay to the patent holder if you actually use the code. While "somebody else" can benefit from using it, he/she still has to pay if the patent holder demands so. Not every "open source" license is automatically a "GNU" one. It's not only the moral issue (who benefits) but also the legal one. Even ignoring the legal one, imagine you being in his shoes: you earn money by selling your invention, and for convenience to your clients, you sell them your code. Then somebody asks you to allow him to include your code in some other project which is published under some other "open source license." You agree not knowing what that actually means, for example, because he who asked used misleading language. Later you find out that you misunderstood the effects of that action. Morally, the agreement where one agrees only because he was mislead is certainly not the agreement which has to be enforced. It should be annulled.
- mathetic 12y ago
  > You agree not knowing what that actually means Exactly. Firstly, kudos to project maintainer for handling the situation gracefully. I respect that he respected M3 creator's wishes. You're quite right in an ideal universe. Ours is far from that. The code for the project is out there, so if someone does not want to pay the programmer, then they will reimplement it in house and no one will ever know about it period. If on the other hand they prefer the port, then there must be a good reason for it such as better compatibility/maintainability/performance/etc. Now let's go to the ideal universe. Well, if everyone abides the rules, then the project creator effectively contaminated other programmers. If someone interested in solving the same problem examined the code thoroughly, then they are influenced by the solution and that is perfectly reasonable because they looked at the code thinking it is under BSD licence. Now that they know they are influenced by the program, they are ethically obliged to avoid solving the problem or they would be infringing author's "copyright" (that is despite the fact that you cannot copyright an algorithm).
- baddox 12y ago
  The fact that other things are protected by patent is irrelevant, because it appears this creator has no patents for this project. It's hard for me to imagine myself in the shoes of someone with views on intellectual property which are fundamentally very different from my own. I believe that views on IP like his harm the software community immensely. The fact that his specific take on IP (and his interpretation of relevant US law, which may or may not be accurate) is one which he believes benefits himself, combined with the "put yourself in his shoes" argument, is not sufficient for me to change my views.
  - prutschman 12y ago
    He has applied for a patent but appear not to have been issued yet: "System and method for phonetic representation" https://www.google.com/patents/US20090043584 https://www.google.com/patents/US20090043584 EDIT: Downthread someone looked it up and determined that it failed to issue
  - acqq 12y ago
    Even with all what you say, do you really believe that there should exist any agreement that can never be annulled, no matter why? That if you agree with something not knowing full effects, somebody actually has the right to find you "guilty" for not knowing better? Do you really agree with the world where everybody who ever manages to trick somebody else is absolutely guaranteed to win?
    - baddox 12y ago
      > do you really believe that there should exist any agreement that can never be annulled, no matter what? Definitely. I believe that most everyday transactions, like when I buy a loaf of bread from a store, should be like that. In general, most simple transactions that occurs within a very short time period without any stipulations for future action from any present party need not be annullable. My claim is that code licensing is an example of this of course any given license only applies to the state of the code when it was released with that license.
      - 12y ago
lphilips54 12y ago
Well, I am sorry to have misunderstood the fact that a BSD license swears away any rights of control. In practice it turns out to be nearly indistinguishable from Public Domain, so what's the point? Let's just call it Public Domain and quit pussyfooting around. Why the outpouring of hostility and contempt? I'm sure I sounded 'arrogant' - perhaps I was not too pleased with the tone of voice of many of the commenters here either. Yes, I am perfectly aware of the difference between copyright and patent. What I was not aware of is that the copyright notice required by BSD is useful only in asserting the right of the copyright owner to swear away virtually all of the protections normally granted by a copyright notice. It is a legally castrated copyright. "then he basically forbids other people from using the efficient algorithm" Did I ever say that I was trying to place any restrictions on the use of Metaphone3.java as is or however you might want to privately re-implement it? I donated the my work in the open refine project and it is there for all to see. I had a notion that by allowing the source code to be made available I was doing something good that would make Open Source advocates happy! I'm glad you find my work useful enough to make a fuss about. Metaphone 3 is the product of my work alone - all the research and resulting 'rules' and logic were developed by myself from primary source data. Metaphone, Double Metaphone, and Metaphone 3 are not derivative works. Again, my apologies if I misunderstood your "right" to do whatever you want with my work without restriction. Your method of asserting your rights, however, has certainly done nothing to make me feel welcome in your "community".
- davidgerard 12y ago
  > Well, I am sorry to have misunderstood the fact that a BSD license swears away any rights of control. In practice it turns out to be nearly indistinguishable from Public Domain, so what's the point? Let's just call it Public Domain and quit pussyfooting around. Yes. BSD is pretty close to public domain. That's what it's for.
- jfrisby 12y ago
  1) It's not a "legally castrated copyright", it's a tool that we use to enforce a behavioral pattern that encourages growth of the commons. 2) Why should we feel "happy" when you've pulled a bait-and-switch, and acted as a bully? Your behavior and mindset are grossly at odds with the purpose of open source. Your effort was a trojan horse that's disruptive to the community. In short: You literally missed the point of "open source" entirely. 3) You explicitly stated that the algorithm is "not in the public domain", so falling back to a position that one can merely use Metaphone3.java is disingenuous. Java source is not useful or suitable to those of us in the Ruby world. We don't want to have to deal with the added overhead of a JVM. 4) Don't expect to be welcomed when you act like a bully, because you didn't know what the hell you were doing. It's not our job to teach you what the BSD license means, or what the difference between a copyright and a patent is. 5) Don't let the door hit you on the butt on your way out!

acqq 12y ago

> If the code is useful to enough people, then there is damage to everyone else who might have benefited the port. So what? There exist enough codes which are licensed under some kind of "open source" license for which you still have to pay to the patent holder if you actually use the code. While "somebody else" can benefit from using it, he/she still has to pay if the patent holder demands so. Not every "open source" license is automatically a "GNU" one. It's not only the moral issue (who benefits) but also the legal one. Even ignoring the legal one, imagine you being in his shoes: you earn money by selling your invention, and for convenience to your clients, you sell them your code. Then somebody asks you to allow him to include your code in some other project which is published under some other "open source license." You agree not knowing what that actually means, for example, because he who asked used misleading language. Later you find out that you misunderstood the effects of that action. Morally, the agreement where one agrees only because he was mislead is certainly not the agreement which has to be enforced. It should be annulled.

mathetic 12y ago
> You agree not knowing what that actually means Exactly. Firstly, kudos to project maintainer for handling the situation gracefully. I respect that he respected M3 creator's wishes. You're quite right in an ideal universe. Ours is far from that. The code for the project is out there, so if someone does not want to pay the programmer, then they will reimplement it in house and no one will ever know about it period. If on the other hand they prefer the port, then there must be a good reason for it such as better compatibility/maintainability/performance/etc. Now let's go to the ideal universe. Well, if everyone abides the rules, then the project creator effectively contaminated other programmers. If someone interested in solving the same problem examined the code thoroughly, then they are influenced by the solution and that is perfectly reasonable because they looked at the code thinking it is under BSD licence. Now that they know they are influenced by the program, they are ethically obliged to avoid solving the problem or they would be infringing author's "copyright" (that is despite the fact that you cannot copyright an algorithm).
baddox 12y ago
The fact that other things are protected by patent is irrelevant, because it appears this creator has no patents for this project. It's hard for me to imagine myself in the shoes of someone with views on intellectual property which are fundamentally very different from my own. I believe that views on IP like his harm the software community immensely. The fact that his specific take on IP (and his interpretation of relevant US law, which may or may not be accurate) is one which he believes benefits himself, combined with the "put yourself in his shoes" argument, is not sufficient for me to change my views.
- prutschman 12y ago
  He has applied for a patent but appear not to have been issued yet: "System and method for phonetic representation" https://www.google.com/patents/US20090043584 https://www.google.com/patents/US20090043584 EDIT: Downthread someone looked it up and determined that it failed to issue
- acqq 12y ago
  Even with all what you say, do you really believe that there should exist any agreement that can never be annulled, no matter why? That if you agree with something not knowing full effects, somebody actually has the right to find you "guilty" for not knowing better? Do you really agree with the world where everybody who ever manages to trick somebody else is absolutely guaranteed to win?
  - baddox 12y ago
    > do you really believe that there should exist any agreement that can never be annulled, no matter what? Definitely. I believe that most everyday transactions, like when I buy a loaf of bread from a store, should be like that. In general, most simple transactions that occurs within a very short time period without any stipulations for future action from any present party need not be annullable. My claim is that code licensing is an example of this of course any given license only applies to the state of the code when it was released with that license.
    - 12y ago

lphilips54 12y ago

Well, I am sorry to have misunderstood the fact that a BSD license swears away any rights of control. In practice it turns out to be nearly indistinguishable from Public Domain, so what's the point? Let's just call it Public Domain and quit pussyfooting around. Why the outpouring of hostility and contempt? I'm sure I sounded 'arrogant' - perhaps I was not too pleased with the tone of voice of many of the commenters here either. Yes, I am perfectly aware of the difference between copyright and patent. What I was not aware of is that the copyright notice required by BSD is useful only in asserting the right of the copyright owner to swear away virtually all of the protections normally granted by a copyright notice. It is a legally castrated copyright. "then he basically forbids other people from using the efficient algorithm" Did I ever say that I was trying to place any restrictions on the use of Metaphone3.java as is or however you might want to privately re-implement it? I donated the my work in the open refine project and it is there for all to see. I had a notion that by allowing the source code to be made available I was doing something good that would make Open Source advocates happy! I'm glad you find my work useful enough to make a fuss about. Metaphone 3 is the product of my work alone - all the research and resulting 'rules' and logic were developed by myself from primary source data. Metaphone, Double Metaphone, and Metaphone 3 are not derivative works. Again, my apologies if I misunderstood your "right" to do whatever you want with my work without restriction. Your method of asserting your rights, however, has certainly done nothing to make me feel welcome in your "community".

davidgerard 12y ago
> Well, I am sorry to have misunderstood the fact that a BSD license swears away any rights of control. In practice it turns out to be nearly indistinguishable from Public Domain, so what's the point? Let's just call it Public Domain and quit pussyfooting around. Yes. BSD is pretty close to public domain. That's what it's for.
jfrisby 12y ago
1) It's not a "legally castrated copyright", it's a tool that we use to enforce a behavioral pattern that encourages growth of the commons. 2) Why should we feel "happy" when you've pulled a bait-and-switch, and acted as a bully? Your behavior and mindset are grossly at odds with the purpose of open source. Your effort was a trojan horse that's disruptive to the community. In short: You literally missed the point of "open source" entirely. 3) You explicitly stated that the algorithm is "not in the public domain", so falling back to a position that one can merely use Metaphone3.java is disingenuous. Java source is not useful or suitable to those of us in the Ruby world. We don't want to have to deal with the added overhead of a JVM. 4) Don't expect to be welcomed when you act like a bully, because you didn't know what the hell you were doing. It's not our job to teach you what the BSD license means, or what the difference between a copyright and a patent is. 5) Don't let the door hit you on the butt on your way out!