And The Award For Most Legally-Encumbered “Hello World†Program ...

Discussion in 'Java' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 2, 2011.

  1. <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/howlett/kicking-off-the-new-year-at-oracle/3174>
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 2, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Paul Cager Guest

    Re: And The Award For Most Legally-Encumbered “Hello World” Program ...

    On Jun 2, 4:12 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/howlett/kicking-off-the-new-year-at-oracle/...>


    It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
    thing, isn't it?
    Paul Cager, Jun 2, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In message
    <>, Paul
    Cager wrote:

    > It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
    > thing, isn't it?


    It would if the code were worth copyrighting.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 2, 2011
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    BGB Guest

    Re: And The Award For Most Legally-Encumbered “Hello World” Program ...

    On 6/2/2011 2:11 AM, Paul Cager wrote:
    > On Jun 2, 4:12 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >> <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/howlett/kicking-off-the-new-year-at-oracle/...>

    >
    > It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
    > thing, isn't it?


    yep, looks like BSD...

    it is actually a bit lame that the article is making a big scare-tactic
    like fuss over a BSD header-comment, which is damn near one of the most
    free options next to Public Domain...


    now, more LOLZ would have been if someone had included the entirety of
    the GPLv3 in a programs' header comments...

    and, yes, GPL would be a bit more legally encumbering than BSD is...
    BGB, Jun 2, 2011
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Paul Cager Guest

    Re: And The Award For Most Legally-Encumbered “Hello World” Program ...

    On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > In message
    > <>, Paul
    >
    > Cager wrote:
    > > It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
    > > thing, isn't it?

    >
    > It would if the code were worth copyrighting.


    You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
    license.
    Paul Cager, Jun 2, 2011
    #5
  6. In message
    <>, Paul
    Cager wrote:

    > On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >
    >> In message
    >> <>, Paul
    >>
    >> Cager wrote:
    >> > It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
    >> > thing, isn't it?

    >>
    >> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.

    >
    > You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
    > license.


    What is the licence for?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 2, 2011
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Paul Cager Guest

    Re: And The Award For Most Legally-Encumbered “Hello World” Program ...

    On Jun 2, 1:08 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > In message
    > <>, Paul
    >
    > Cager wrote:
    > > On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:

    >
    > >> In message
    > >> <>, Paul

    >
    > >> Cager wrote:
    > >> > It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
    > >> > thing, isn't it?

    >
    > >> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.

    >
    > > You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
    > > license.

    >
    > What is the licence for?


    The license grants us permission to use the code. Without a license we
    could be breaching copyright by redistributing it. But you're a free
    software developer so I assume you knew that anyway. I'm not sure I
    follow what point you are trying to make.
    Paul Cager, Jun 2, 2011
    #7
  8. Re: And The Award For Most Legally-Encumbered “Hello World” Program ...

    On 11-06-02 08:34 AM, Paul Cager wrote:
    > On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >> In message
    >> <>, Paul
    >>
    >> Cager wrote:
    >>> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
    >>> thing, isn't it?

    >>
    >> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.

    >
    > You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
    > license.


    Who's talking about a license? Oracle is attempting to copyright that
    HelloWorld code. Strictly speaking they didn't even have to include that
    "Copyright (c) 1995, 2008, Oracle..." bit, but since they did their
    intentions are very clear. They also refer to themselves as the
    copyright holder a little bit further down the blurb.

    Everything about that boilerplate has to do with copyright.

    AHS
    Arved Sandstrom, Jun 2, 2011
    #8
  9. Re: And The Award For Most Legally-Encumbered “Hello World” Program ...

    On 11-06-02 06:21 PM, BGB wrote:
    > On 6/2/2011 1:22 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
    >> On 11-06-02 08:34 AM, Paul Cager wrote:
    >>> On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
    >>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >>>> In message
    >>>> <>,
    >>>> Paul
    >>>>
    >>>> Cager wrote:
    >>>>> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
    >>>>> thing, isn't it?
    >>>>
    >>>> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.
    >>>
    >>> You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
    >>> license.

    >>
    >> Who's talking about a license? Oracle is attempting to copyright that
    >> HelloWorld code. Strictly speaking they didn't even have to include that
    >> "Copyright (c) 1995, 2008, Oracle..." bit, but since they did their
    >> intentions are very clear. They also refer to themselves as the
    >> copyright holder a little bit further down the blurb.
    >>
    >> Everything about that boilerplate has to do with copyright.
    >>

    >
    > but, it is worth noting a few things:
    > the text appears to be a fairly standard 3-clause BSD-style license;
    > it is generally considered to be proper withing FOSS circles to put such
    > a notice in *every* source file, such that it remains clear at all
    > points how the code in question is licensed.
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license
    >
    > note the section on the "New BSD License", which as may be noted, has
    > very similar text and style (about the only differences I see is that
    > Oracle inserted its name in the appropriate spots, labeled "<copyright
    > holder>" in the aforementioned license).
    >
    > generally, an absence of such a notice is (implicitly) meant to imply
    > that it owned by the original owner, with all rights reserved except
    > under the permission of the original author, until 80 years following
    > said author's death (under which point it goes into public domain).
    >
    > putting such a notice in a file thus states that a person is free to use
    > said "hello world" program under the stated terms (which include copying
    > and the creation of derivative works, ...). or effectively that the
    > original author is waiving some of their legal rights.
    >
    > yes, one can argue that it is a little silly to bother with this for a
    > "hello world" program, but there is no obvious malice or ill-intention
    > on Oracle's part for having done so.
    >

    Again, not discussing licensing yet, copyright applies to *original*
    works. Regardless of the exact mechanics of a copyright coming into
    force in various jurisdictions, Oracle can NOT copyright HelloWorld in
    any language, not to mention a bunch of other obvious and much-used code.

    I don't think they are malicious either. I simply think they have
    ignorant lawyers and cowed developers.

    AHS
    Arved Sandstrom, Jun 2, 2011
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    BGB Guest

    Re: And The Award For Most Legally-Encumbered “Hello World” Program ...

    On 6/2/2011 3:19 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
    > On 11-06-02 06:21 PM, BGB wrote:
    >> On 6/2/2011 1:22 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
    >>> On 11-06-02 08:34 AM, Paul Cager wrote:
    >>>> On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
    >>>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >>>>> In message
    >>>>> <>,
    >>>>> Paul
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Cager wrote:
    >>>>>> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
    >>>>>> thing, isn't it?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.
    >>>>
    >>>> You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
    >>>> license.
    >>>
    >>> Who's talking about a license? Oracle is attempting to copyright that
    >>> HelloWorld code. Strictly speaking they didn't even have to include that
    >>> "Copyright (c) 1995, 2008, Oracle..." bit, but since they did their
    >>> intentions are very clear. They also refer to themselves as the
    >>> copyright holder a little bit further down the blurb.
    >>>
    >>> Everything about that boilerplate has to do with copyright.
    >>>

    >>
    >> but, it is worth noting a few things:
    >> the text appears to be a fairly standard 3-clause BSD-style license;
    >> it is generally considered to be proper withing FOSS circles to put such
    >> a notice in *every* source file, such that it remains clear at all
    >> points how the code in question is licensed.
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license
    >>
    >> note the section on the "New BSD License", which as may be noted, has
    >> very similar text and style (about the only differences I see is that
    >> Oracle inserted its name in the appropriate spots, labeled "<copyright
    >> holder>" in the aforementioned license).
    >>
    >> generally, an absence of such a notice is (implicitly) meant to imply
    >> that it owned by the original owner, with all rights reserved except
    >> under the permission of the original author, until 80 years following
    >> said author's death (under which point it goes into public domain).
    >>
    >> putting such a notice in a file thus states that a person is free to use
    >> said "hello world" program under the stated terms (which include copying
    >> and the creation of derivative works, ...). or effectively that the
    >> original author is waiving some of their legal rights.
    >>
    >> yes, one can argue that it is a little silly to bother with this for a
    >> "hello world" program, but there is no obvious malice or ill-intention
    >> on Oracle's part for having done so.
    >>

    > Again, not discussing licensing yet, copyright applies to *original*
    > works. Regardless of the exact mechanics of a copyright coming into
    > force in various jurisdictions, Oracle can NOT copyright HelloWorld in
    > any language, not to mention a bunch of other obvious and much-used code.
    >
    > I don't think they are malicious either. I simply think they have
    > ignorant lawyers and cowed developers.
    >


    actually, it depends on how one defines "original".

    AFAIK the usual working definition of original is that it was originally
    written by a certain person.

    given a person can easily write out a hello world program without
    needing to go any copy code from any other source, it classifies as
    original (as opposed to a derived work, which would incorporate code
    from another source, say if one copy/pasted the "Hello World" string
    from another such example).


    hence, I can go type out, say (in my own original / creatively-designed
    HLL):
    import bs.io;
    void main(string[] args)
    {
    printf("Hello World\n");
    }

    and, since I was the one to write it (say, as an example for this usenet
    post), legally I can claim copyright on it.

    granted, this does not mean that it is "original" in the sense that it
    involves any non-trivial behavior or creative thought (but, AFAIK, this
    is not the sense of "original" that copyright deals with).


    or such...
    BGB, Jun 2, 2011
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    BGB Guest

    Re: And The Award For Most Legally-Encumbered “Hello World” Program ...

    On 6/2/2011 3:42 PM, BGB wrote:
    > On 6/2/2011 3:19 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
    >> On 11-06-02 06:21 PM, BGB wrote:
    >>> On 6/2/2011 1:22 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
    >>>> On 11-06-02 08:34 AM, Paul Cager wrote:
    >>>>> On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
    >>>>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >>>>>> In message
    >>>>>> <>,
    >>>>>> Paul
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Cager wrote:
    >>>>>>> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's
    >>>>>>> a good
    >>>>>>> thing, isn't it?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
    >>>>> license.
    >>>>
    >>>> Who's talking about a license? Oracle is attempting to copyright that
    >>>> HelloWorld code. Strictly speaking they didn't even have to include
    >>>> that
    >>>> "Copyright (c) 1995, 2008, Oracle..." bit, but since they did their
    >>>> intentions are very clear. They also refer to themselves as the
    >>>> copyright holder a little bit further down the blurb.
    >>>>
    >>>> Everything about that boilerplate has to do with copyright.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> but, it is worth noting a few things:
    >>> the text appears to be a fairly standard 3-clause BSD-style license;
    >>> it is generally considered to be proper withing FOSS circles to put
    >>> such
    >>> a notice in *every* source file, such that it remains clear at all
    >>> points how the code in question is licensed.
    >>>
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license
    >>>
    >>> note the section on the "New BSD License", which as may be noted, has
    >>> very similar text and style (about the only differences I see is that
    >>> Oracle inserted its name in the appropriate spots, labeled "<copyright
    >>> holder>" in the aforementioned license).
    >>>
    >>> generally, an absence of such a notice is (implicitly) meant to imply
    >>> that it owned by the original owner, with all rights reserved except
    >>> under the permission of the original author, until 80 years following
    >>> said author's death (under which point it goes into public domain).
    >>>
    >>> putting such a notice in a file thus states that a person is free to
    >>> use
    >>> said "hello world" program under the stated terms (which include
    >>> copying
    >>> and the creation of derivative works, ...). or effectively that the
    >>> original author is waiving some of their legal rights.
    >>>
    >>> yes, one can argue that it is a little silly to bother with this for a
    >>> "hello world" program, but there is no obvious malice or ill-intention
    >>> on Oracle's part for having done so.
    >>>

    >> Again, not discussing licensing yet, copyright applies to *original*
    >> works. Regardless of the exact mechanics of a copyright coming into
    >> force in various jurisdictions, Oracle can NOT copyright HelloWorld in
    >> any language, not to mention a bunch of other obvious and much-used
    >> code.
    >>
    >> I don't think they are malicious either. I simply think they have
    >> ignorant lawyers and cowed developers.
    >>

    >
    > actually, it depends on how one defines "original".
    >
    > AFAIK the usual working definition of original is that it was
    > originally written by a certain person.
    >
    > given a person can easily write out a hello world program without
    > needing to go any copy code from any other source, it classifies as
    > original (as opposed to a derived work, which would incorporate code
    > from another source, say if one copy/pasted the "Hello World" string
    > from another such example).
    >


    quick check revealed an error here:
    the "Hello World" string can be classified as a "short phrase", and so
    apparently, can't itself be held under copyright. this means that the
    "Hello World" program would remain as an original work even with copying
    the "Hello World" string from another program.


    >
    > hence, I can go type out, say (in my own original /
    > creatively-designed HLL):
    > import bs.io;
    > void main(string[] args)
    > {
    > printf("Hello World\n");
    > }
    >
    > and, since I was the one to write it (say, as an example for this
    > usenet post), legally I can claim copyright on it.
    >
    > granted, this does not mean that it is "original" in the sense that it
    > involves any non-trivial behavior or creative thought (but, AFAIK,
    > this is not the sense of "original" that copyright deals with).
    >


    hmm... but there is possibly the matter of the total amount of content...
    it may be infact too short to really be subject to copyright, which I
    had not previously considered...
    BGB, Jun 2, 2011
    #11
  12. Re: And The Award For Most Legally-Encumbered “Hello World” Program ...

    On 11-06-02 07:42 PM, BGB wrote:
    > On 6/2/2011 3:19 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
    >> On 11-06-02 06:21 PM, BGB wrote:
    >>> On 6/2/2011 1:22 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
    >>>> On 11-06-02 08:34 AM, Paul Cager wrote:
    >>>>> On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
    >>>>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >>>>>> In message
    >>>>>> <>,
    >>>>>> Paul
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Cager wrote:
    >>>>>>> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a
    >>>>>>> good
    >>>>>>> thing, isn't it?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
    >>>>> license.
    >>>>
    >>>> Who's talking about a license? Oracle is attempting to copyright that
    >>>> HelloWorld code. Strictly speaking they didn't even have to include
    >>>> that
    >>>> "Copyright (c) 1995, 2008, Oracle..." bit, but since they did their
    >>>> intentions are very clear. They also refer to themselves as the
    >>>> copyright holder a little bit further down the blurb.
    >>>>
    >>>> Everything about that boilerplate has to do with copyright.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> but, it is worth noting a few things:
    >>> the text appears to be a fairly standard 3-clause BSD-style license;
    >>> it is generally considered to be proper withing FOSS circles to put such
    >>> a notice in *every* source file, such that it remains clear at all
    >>> points how the code in question is licensed.
    >>>
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license
    >>>
    >>> note the section on the "New BSD License", which as may be noted, has
    >>> very similar text and style (about the only differences I see is that
    >>> Oracle inserted its name in the appropriate spots, labeled "<copyright
    >>> holder>" in the aforementioned license).
    >>>
    >>> generally, an absence of such a notice is (implicitly) meant to imply
    >>> that it owned by the original owner, with all rights reserved except
    >>> under the permission of the original author, until 80 years following
    >>> said author's death (under which point it goes into public domain).
    >>>
    >>> putting such a notice in a file thus states that a person is free to use
    >>> said "hello world" program under the stated terms (which include copying
    >>> and the creation of derivative works, ...). or effectively that the
    >>> original author is waiving some of their legal rights.
    >>>
    >>> yes, one can argue that it is a little silly to bother with this for a
    >>> "hello world" program, but there is no obvious malice or ill-intention
    >>> on Oracle's part for having done so.
    >>>

    >> Again, not discussing licensing yet, copyright applies to *original*
    >> works. Regardless of the exact mechanics of a copyright coming into
    >> force in various jurisdictions, Oracle can NOT copyright HelloWorld in
    >> any language, not to mention a bunch of other obvious and much-used code.
    >>
    >> I don't think they are malicious either. I simply think they have
    >> ignorant lawyers and cowed developers.
    >>

    >
    > actually, it depends on how one defines "original".
    >
    > AFAIK the usual working definition of original is that it was originally
    > written by a certain person.
    >
    > given a person can easily write out a hello world program without
    > needing to go any copy code from any other source, it classifies as
    > original (as opposed to a derived work, which would incorporate code
    > from another source, say if one copy/pasted the "Hello World" string
    > from another such example).

    [ SNIP ]

    "Original" for copyright means independent creative effort. There is
    also, as you alluded to in another reply, a test of substantiality. The
    Oracle "HelloWorld" snippet fails in its entirety for the substantiality
    test.

    Copying simply means copying. Keying in a psvm HelloWorld mantra from
    memory is still copying, because precisely 99.99999 percent of all Java
    developers have seen an example of it.

    AHS
    Arved Sandstrom, Jun 3, 2011
    #12
  13. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Paul Cager Guest

    Re: And The Award For Most Legally-Encumbered “Hello World” Program ...

    On Jun 2, 9:22 pm, Arved Sandstrom <>
    wrote:
    > On 11-06-02 08:34 AM, Paul Cager wrote:
    >
    > > On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > >> In message
    > >> <>, Paul

    >
    > >> Cager wrote:
    > >>> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
    > >>> thing, isn't it?

    >
    > >> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.

    >
    > > You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
    > > license.

    >
    > Who's talking about a license? Oracle is attempting to copyright that
    > HelloWorld code.


    No, I'm afraid that's not true. The first couple of lines define the
    copyright _holders_, but the rest of it is the _license_ (a BSD
    license in this case).

    The distinction is important. This isn't a case of Oracle trying to
    "claim" something as their own and prevent others using it; rather
    Oracle are explicitly giving us permission to use their work. Now for
    a 5 line "Hello World" program it probably doesn't make much
    _practical_ difference as no-one's going to complain if you copy it
    without permission (even assuming it wasn't classed as a derived
    work). But for larger bodies of code (such as the JDK) having that
    license boiler plate is very significant; without a Free license
    projects such as OpenJDK would not be possible.

    Much as I enjoy Oracle-bashing it seems quite wrong to portray
    granting a Free software license as something bad.

    Tongue-in-cheek definitions:
    Copyright: I wrote this code so I'm the only one who can use it. You
    can write your own version, but don't copy mine.
    Copyright + License: I wrote this code but you can use it as well
    (subject to terms & conditions...).
    Software Patent: I don't care who wrote this code; just send me the
    money every time you use it.
    Paul Cager, Jun 3, 2011
    #13
  14. Re: And The Award For Most Legally-Encumbered “Hello World” Program ...

    On 06/02/2011 06:56 PM, BGB wrote:
    > the "Hello World" string can be classified as a "short phrase", and so
    > apparently, can't itself be held under copyright. this means that the
    > "Hello World" program would remain as an original work even with copying
    > the "Hello World" string from another program.


    That is not a tenant that exists in law, if I recall my legal history
    correctly. I can't find the case right now, but the US Supreme Court
    basically said there is no legal minimum amount that has to be quoted to
    cause a violation of copyright.

    --
    Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
    tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
    Joshua Cranmer, Jun 3, 2011
    #14
  15. In message <5ebf790e-1d47-409f-9b00-
    >, Paul Cager wrote:

    > On Jun 2, 1:08 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >
    >> In message
    >> <>, Paul
    >>
    >> Cager wrote:
    >> > On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    >> > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:

    >>
    >> >> In message
    >> >> <>,
    >> >> Paul

    >>
    >> >> Cager wrote:
    >> >> > It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a
    >> >> > good thing, isn't it?

    >>
    >> >> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.

    >>
    >> > You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
    >> > license.

    >>
    >> What is the licence for?

    >
    > The license grants us permission to use the code. Without a license we
    > could be breaching copyright by redistributing it.


    You mean, the way you could be “breaching copyright†by “redistributingâ€
    your USENET posting containing quotations of my words?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 3, 2011
    #15
  16. In message
    <>, Paul
    Cager wrote:

    > This isn't a case of Oracle trying to "claim" something as their own and
    > prevent others using it;


    Who said it was, strawman-spouter?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 3, 2011
    #16
  17. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    BGB Guest

    Re: And The Award For Most Legally-Encumbered “Hello World” Program ...

    On 6/2/2011 7:21 PM, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
    > On 06/02/2011 06:56 PM, BGB wrote:
    >> the "Hello World" string can be classified as a "short phrase", and so
    >> apparently, can't itself be held under copyright. this means that the
    >> "Hello World" program would remain as an original work even with copying
    >> the "Hello World" string from another program.

    >
    > That is not a tenant that exists in law, if I recall my legal history
    > correctly. I can't find the case right now, but the US Supreme Court
    > basically said there is no legal minimum amount that has to be quoted to
    > cause a violation of copyright.
    >


    that is what I thought previously, however, looking it up apparently has
    a quote from "US Copyright Office Circular 14" which basically says that
    copyright can't be applied to titles or short phrases, as these are not
    in themselves subject to copyright.

    this would seem to imply that there is *some* lower limit, and hence
    copyright may require something larger than, say, "Hello World\n".


    it is possible that a "quote" would be, by definition, larger than a
    "short phrase" (which would presumably be limited to only a few words?).


    or such...
    BGB, Jun 3, 2011
    #17
  18. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    BGB Guest

    On 6/2/2011 8:10 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message<5ebf790e-1d47-409f-9b00-
    > >, Paul Cager wrote:
    >
    >> On Jun 2, 1:08 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
    >> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >>
    >>> In message
    >>> <>, Paul
    >>>
    >>> Cager wrote:
    >>>> On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
    >>>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> In message
    >>>>> <>,
    >>>>> Paul
    >>>
    >>>>> Cager wrote:
    >>>>>> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a
    >>>>>> good thing, isn't it?
    >>>
    >>>>> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.
    >>>
    >>>> You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
    >>>> license.
    >>>
    >>> What is the licence for?

    >>
    >> The license grants us permission to use the code. Without a license we
    >> could be breaching copyright by redistributing it.

    >
    > You mean, the way you could be “breaching copyright†by “redistributingâ€
    > your USENET posting containing quotations of my words?


    possibly, except that the nature of Usenet itself is itself for public
    communicaton and conversation, and so it would be a little harder to
    make the case that someone was breaching copyright simply by using the
    medium for its intended purpose...

    granted, maybe to be really "proper" in a legal sense, Usenet posters
    would have to agree to a legal agreement to effectively waive personal
    copyright ownership over the messages they post on Usenet, with some
    additional clauses/special cases to deal with all the edge cases, such
    as when posting a message containing content from a 3rd party, ...
    BGB, Jun 3, 2011
    #18
  19. In message <is9p72$hqa$>, BGB wrote:

    > On 6/2/2011 8:10 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> In message<5ebf790e-1d47-409f-9b00-
    >> >, Paul Cager wrote:
    >>
    >>> The license grants us permission to use the code. Without a license we
    >>> could be breaching copyright by redistributing it.

    >>
    >> You mean, the way you could be “breaching copyright†by “redistributingâ€
    >> your USENET posting containing quotations of my words?

    >
    > possibly, except that the nature of Usenet itself is itself for public
    > communicaton and conversation ...


    Same reasoning applies to the entire Internet, on which all kinds software
    is made available.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 3, 2011
    #19
  20. In message <is8v1m$1a2$>, BGB wrote:

    > yes, one can argue that it is a little silly to bother with this for a
    > "hello world" program, but there is no obvious malice or ill-intention
    > on Oracle's part for having done so.


    Not that anyone suggested there was.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 3, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. JimmyJohn
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    341
    JimmyJohn
    Sep 5, 2005
  2. H.MuthuKumaraRajan
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    430
    H.MuthuKumaraRajan
    Feb 4, 2004
  3. Leif K-Brooks
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    272
    Leif K-Brooks
    Jan 11, 2007
  4. xkenneth
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    330
    Bruno Desthuilliers
    Feb 6, 2008
  5. Richard Hanson
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    287
    Richard Hanson
    Jan 17, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page