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

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

<http://www.zdnet.com/blog/howlett/kicking-off-the-new-year-at-oracle/3174>

 

[Paul Cager]

<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?

 

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

In message

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.

 

[BGB]

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...

 

[Paul Cager]

In message


It would if the code were worth copyrighting.

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

 

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

In message

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

What is the licence for?

 

[Paul Cager]

In message



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.

 

[Arved Sandstrom]

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]

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

 

[BGB]

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]

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...

 

[Arved Sandstrom]

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

 

[Paul Cager]

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.

 

[Joshua Cranmer]

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.

 

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

In message <5ebf790e-1d47-409f-9b00-

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]

In message

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?

 

[BGB]

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]

In message<5ebf790e-1d47-409f-9b00-


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, ...

 

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

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]

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.