Re: Re-using copyrighted code

Discussion in 'Python' started by Mark Janssen, Jun 9, 2013.

  1. Mark Janssen

    Mark Janssen Guest

    On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Michael Torrie <> wrote:
    > On 06/09/2013 11:18 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
    >> You actually do not. Attaching a legal document is purely a secondary
    >> protection from those who would take away right already granted by US
    >> copyright.

    >
    > You are correct, except that the OP has already stated he wishes to have
    > his code distributed. Without granting a license, the code cannot be
    > distributed beyond the people he personally gives the code too. PyPi
    > cannot legally allow others to download it without a license.


    That's not entirely correct. If he *publishes* his code (I'm using
    this term "publish" technically to mean "put forth in a way where
    anyone of the general public can or is encouraged to view"), then he
    is *tacitly* giving up protections that secrecy (or *not* disclosing
    it) would *automatically* grant. The only preserved right is
    authorship after that. So it can be re-distributed freely, if
    authorship is preserved. The only issue after that is "fair use" and
    that includes running the program (not merely copying the source).

    Re-selling for money violates fair-use, as does redistribution without
    preserving credit assignment (unless they've naively waived those
    rights away). I will have to take a look at PyPi. But if you are
    *publishing*, there's no court which can protect your IP afterwards
    from redistribution, unless you explicitly *restrict* it. In which
    case, if you restrict terms of re-use, you're putting the court in
    jeopardy because you making two actions opposed to one another. The
    only thing the court can easily uphold is your authorship and
    non-exploitation from a violation of fair-use (note again the key word
    is "use", nor merely copying the code). But then if you waive *that*
    right away, you put the court in jeopardy again.

    > Here's how the GPL puts it, and of course this applies to any and all
    > licenses, even proprietary ones:
    >
    > "However, nothing else [besides the License] grants you permission to
    > modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions
    > are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
    > modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
    > Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all
    > its terms and conditions for copying..."


    Well this is where one must make a distinction with fair-use -- if I
    re-publish my modifications then the code is still subject to the
    terms by the original author. If I make a copy for myself and run the
    problem for personal, non-commercial use, then I am in the domain of
    fair use and have no other obligations.

    --
    MarkJ
    Tacoma, Washington
    Mark Janssen, Jun 9, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 13:32:00 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:

    > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Michael Torrie <>
    > wrote:
    >> On 06/09/2013 11:18 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
    >>> You actually do not. Attaching a legal document is purely a secondary
    >>> protection from those who would take away right already granted by US
    >>> copyright.

    >>
    >> You are correct, except that the OP has already stated he wishes to
    >> have his code distributed. Without granting a license, the code cannot
    >> be distributed beyond the people he personally gives the code too.
    >> PyPi cannot legally allow others to download it without a license.

    >
    > That's not entirely correct. If he *publishes* his code (I'm using this
    > term "publish" technically to mean "put forth in a way where anyone of
    > the general public can or is encouraged to view"), then he is *tacitly*
    > giving up protections that secrecy (or *not* disclosing it) would
    > *automatically* grant. The only preserved right is authorship after
    > that. So it can be re-distributed freely, if authorship is preserved.


    Mark, ever watched TV? Or gone to the movies? Or walked into a bookshop?
    Listened to the radio? All these things publish copyrighted work. It is
    utter nonsense that merely publishing something in public gives up the
    monopoly privileges granted by copyright.

    Armchair lawyering is one thing, but please at least *try* to apply
    thought to these things before making ridiculous claims. If merely
    publishing something voided copyright monopoly, then copyright would
    hardly encourage people to publish things they wished to monopolise,
    would it?


    > The only issue after that is "fair use" and that includes running the
    > program (not merely copying the source).


    Running the program is irrelevant to copyright. Copyright does not grant
    the creator a monopoly of *running* the program.


    > Re-selling for money violates fair-use,


    The principle of re-sale have nothing to do with fair use.


    > as does redistribution without
    > preserving credit assignment (unless they've naively waived those rights
    > away).


    One cannot *naively* waive away copyright monopoly privileges. It
    requires an explicit and overt act to give away the rights granted. One
    might deliberately publish your work under a permissive licence without
    realising that it is permissive, but that's not an act of naivety, it's
    an act of stupidity for not reading the licence and understanding it
    before publishing.

    "Well Your Honour, I had heard that all the cool kids were using the GPL,
    so I copied the GPL into my source code. I didn't realise it had legal
    meaning."


    > I will have to take a look at PyPi. But if you are
    > *publishing*, there's no court which can protect your IP afterwards from
    > redistribution, unless you explicitly *restrict* it.


    When you listen to a song on the radio, do you know how they have a
    copyright announcer read out the copyright and explicitly list all the
    rights they keep after each and every song and advertisment?

    No, me neither. It doesn't happen. Because it's nonsense that you give up
    copyright by publishing.


    > In which case, if
    > you restrict terms of re-use, you're putting the court in jeopardy
    > because you making two actions opposed to one another. The only thing
    > the court can easily uphold is your authorship and non-exploitation from
    > a violation of fair-use (note again the key word is "use", nor merely
    > copying the code). But then if you waive *that* right away, you put the
    > court in jeopardy again.


    Put the court in jeopardy huh. Oh my, that's a level of embarrassment I
    haven't seen for a long time.

    Unless you are the government of the land, nothing you publish has
    jurisdiction over the court or can put it in jeopardy. You can publish:

    "I hereby abolish the court, and sentence everyone involved with it to
    being soundly spanked on the bottom until it turns red."

    but it has no legal or practical standing.


    [...]
    > Well this is where one must make a distinction with fair-use -- if I
    > re-publish my modifications then the code is still subject to the terms
    > by the original author. If I make a copy for myself and run the problem
    > for personal, non-commercial use, then I am in the domain of fair use
    > and have no other obligations.


    That's utter nonsense. Fair use does not give you the right to make a
    copy of an entire work for your own use, non-commercial or not. Fair use
    let's you copy a handful of pages from a book, not the entire thing.



    --
    Steven
    Steven D'Aprano, Jun 10, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mark Janssen

    Mark Janssen Guest

    > Mark, ever watched TV? Or gone to the movies? Or walked into a bookshop?
    > Listened to the radio? All these things publish copyrighted work. It is
    > utter nonsense that merely publishing something in public gives up the
    > monopoly privileges granted by copyright.


    That's not correct. Keep in mind, that the law is for people: there
    is no automatic right to profit. There certainly is no "right to
    monopoly" (which you are absurdly arguing) on *anything* released to
    the public. If you want that monopoly *you* have to provide the means
    to protect your IP. You, sir, are being ridiculous and perhaps the
    court along with you -- I'm just telling you what is correct. That's
    important.

    A movie producer, publishes his/her work as soon as he/she puts it on
    the market or otherwise releases it for public viewing. That's just
    the risk of doing business. Fortunately, for them, its not easy to
    make a verbatim copy of a film, in a theatre or otherwise. But
    copyright ensures that they get the credit for making the movie -- not
    for profit of publishing it.

    Now copyright includes the clause of "fair-use", so that means one can
    make a copy of something if they aren't depriving the original creator
    of legitimate gains. If they are truly depriving the creator(s) of
    legit gains, then they are in violation. That's all the law should
    support. Don't think there is any law that can determine, once and
    for all, what counts as "legitimate gains" and what violates "fair
    use". *You* have simply *sold out*. "Legitimate gains" is
    something the courts have to work out, on a case-by-case basis, but if
    the movie producers are that worried about losing their gains, then
    they can do the f-ing work and require movie goers to sign a simple
    clause promising that they won't try to copy the movie (on concealed
    cameras and such).

    The issue beyond that, like code, is when it comes to digital media.
    Because digital media allows verbatim copying and *tacitly removes*
    *by its nature* any privilege or monopoly on public viewing. That,
    again, is just the risk of doing business of trying to "maximize your
    market" for-profit. Tough nuts asshole. Things are quite clear
    despite the FUD the media establishment would have you believe. Stop
    capitulating and selling out.

    The only issue is whether you're depriving the original content
    creator of *legitimate* gains. That means many things: how much is
    that movie a derived product of popular culture, for example? (Did
    you get rewarded for participating in some small part of that?) How
    much would you have paid if was offered to you to set the price?

    > Armchair lawyering is one thing, but please at least *try* to apply
    > thought to these things before making ridiculous claims.


    I have, and I assure you they are not ridiculous claims. You have
    just been lulled into complacency, like most everyone else. That's
    why people like the DeCSS folks are doing the rest of us a favor.
    Shame on you for defending the status quo.

    > If merely
    > publishing something voided copyright monopoly,


    Here you already shown your ignorance of the concept. Copyright
    protects your *authorship*, not your profit. Perhaps you're confusing
    patent law with copyright.

    > then copyright would
    > hardly encourage people to publish things they wished to monopolise,
    > would it?


    Why would they publish something they wished to monopolize?

    >> The only issue after that is "fair use" and that includes running the
    >> program (not merely copying the source).

    >
    > Running the program is irrelevant to copyright.


    Technically, the law likely recognizes the distinction from
    reproducing and "running" a program. If I am a secretary and am
    copying something for my boss, I'm not liable am I? But if I derive
    benefit from the program, I am, yes?

    > Copyright does not grant
    > the creator a monopoly of *running* the program.


    No, perhaps you are getting hung up on the misnomer of calling it
    "copyright" which would otherwise imply "right to copy". Copyright,
    could potentially grant the creator rights (like the DMCA) to who
    *can* run the program.

    >> Re-selling for money violates fair-use,

    >
    > The principle of re-sale have nothing to do with fair use.


    Yes it does. You are simply wrong. The point of the law is fairness,
    not supporting monopolies.

    >> as does redistribution without
    >> preserving credit assignment (unless they've naively waived those rights
    >> away).

    >
    > One cannot *naively* waive away copyright monopoly privileges.


    Why not? That is what happens, generally speaking, when one releases
    something to the "public domain", so what are you arguing?

    > It
    > requires an explicit and overt act to give away the rights granted.


    That's what i just implied by saying "waived away their rights".

    > One
    > might deliberately publish your work under a permissive licence without
    > realising that it is permissive, but that's not an act of naivety, it's
    > an act of stupidity for not reading the licence and understanding it
    > before publishing.


    Well, that's what the court is for, to decide whether an act is
    innocent, isn't it :^) ?

    > "Well Your Honour, I had heard that all the cool kids were using the GPL,
    > so I copied the GPL into my source code. I didn't realise it had legal
    > meaning."


    That's right. It's up to the world to educate youth about the law.
    That they have not done so, is not the fault of the kids.

    > When you listen to a song on the radio, do you know how they have a
    > copyright announcer read out the copyright and explicitly list all the
    > rights they keep after each and every song and advertisment?
    >
    > No, me neither. It doesn't happen. Because it's nonsense that you give up
    > copyright by publishing.


    You have not listened and do not understand copyright.

    > Put the court in jeopardy huh. Oh my, that's a level of embarrassment I
    > haven't seen for a long time.


    Yes, that means you are putting the court in the middle where there is
    no clear, fair ruling that can be made.

    The rest of your commentary is not worth my effort until you
    understand basic copyright.

    --
    MarkJ
    Tacoma, Washington
    Mark Janssen, Jun 10, 2013
    #3
  4. On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Mark Janssen <> wrote:
    >> Mark, ever watched TV? Or gone to the movies? Or walked into a bookshop?
    >> Listened to the radio? All these things publish copyrighted work. It is
    >> utter nonsense that merely publishing something in public gives up the
    >> monopoly privileges granted by copyright.

    >
    > That's not correct. Keep in mind, that the law is for people: there
    > is no automatic right to profit. There certainly is no "right to
    > monopoly" (which you are absurdly arguing) on *anything* released to
    > the public. If you want that monopoly *you* have to provide the means
    > to protect your IP. You, sir, are being ridiculous and perhaps the
    > court along with you -- I'm just telling you what is correct. That's
    > important.
    >
    > A movie producer, publishes his/her work as soon as he/she puts it on
    > the market or otherwise releases it for public viewing. That's just
    > the risk of doing business. Fortunately, for them, its not easy to
    > make a verbatim copy of a film, in a theatre or otherwise. But
    > copyright ensures that they get the credit for making the movie -- not
    > for profit of publishing it.
    >
    > Now copyright includes the clause of "fair-use", so that means one can
    > make a copy of something if they aren't depriving the original creator
    > of legitimate gains. If they are truly depriving the creator(s) of
    > legit gains, then they are in violation. That's all the law should
    > support. Don't think there is any law that can determine, once and
    > for all, what counts as "legitimate gains" and what violates "fair
    > use". *You* have simply *sold out*. "Legitimate gains" is
    > something the courts have to work out, on a case-by-case basis, but if
    > the movie producers are that worried about losing their gains, then
    > they can do the f-ing work and require movie goers to sign a simple
    > clause promising that they won't try to copy the movie (on concealed
    > cameras and such).
    >




    The fact that a work is non commercial is one of several factors that
    is taken into account when determining fair use. It is not an
    automatic fair use for non-commercial works. I have no idea where your
    understanding of copyright law came from, but here is the relevant
    section of the US legal code:

    17 USC § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
    of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
    phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
    purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
    (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
    research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether
    the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the
    factors to be considered shall include—
    (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
    is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
    (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
    the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
    the copyrighted work.
    The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of
    fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above
    factors.


    Can you provide any citations for your interpretation? Besides "that's
    what the law should be", I mean.
    Benjamin Kaplan, Jun 10, 2013
    #4
  5. Mark Janssen

    Mark Janssen Guest

    > The fact that a work is non commercial is one of several factors that
    > is taken into account when determining fair use. It is not an
    > automatic fair use for non-commercial works. I have no idea where your
    > understanding of copyright law came from, but here is the relevant
    > section of the US legal code:


    Thanks for digging out the legal code. Upon reading, it is stunningly
    clear that the legal system has not established a solid framework or
    arching philosophy in which to contain and express the desire (in law)
    to protect content creators of all kinds or the general public with
    the fair use of such works and has been running on the sheer
    confidence of "the American spirit", however facile or misdirected
    that may be.

    > 17 USC § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
    > Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
    > of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
    > phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
    > purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
    > (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
    > research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether
    > the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the
    > factors to be considered shall include—
    > (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
    > is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    > (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
    > (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
    > the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    > (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
    > the copyrighted work.
    > The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of
    > fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above
    > factors.
    >
    > Can you provide any citations for your interpretation? Besides "that's
    > what the law should be", I mean.


    I don't think I even have to: the legal code you're citing above is
    not very clear, consistent, or well-defined at all. As such, it shows
    that this area remains an area that has yet to be worked out by all
    parties involved. I would happily volunteer for any interested
    parties to such a broken system. Alternatively, I've been working on
    a real fix to IP protections in the form of a unified data model for
    the internet and data ecosystem.

    --
    MarkJ
    Tacoma, Washington
    Mark Janssen, Jun 10, 2013
    #5
  6. Mark Janssen

    Tim Chase Guest

    On 2013-06-09 19:30, Mark Janssen wrote:
    > Thanks for digging out the legal code. Upon reading, it is
    > stunningly clear that the legal system has not established a solid
    > framework or arching philosophy in which to contain and express the
    > desire (in law) to protect content creators of all kinds or the
    > general public with the fair use of such works and has been running
    > on the sheer confidence of "the American spirit", however facile or
    > misdirected that may be.


    What is clear is the mandate that sets up the framework in the first
    place:

    "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing
    for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to
    their respective Writings and Discoveries"
    -- USC Article I, Section 8

    If it doesn't "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", then
    it misses the spirit of the law as drafted.

    Granted, courts seem to miss that interpretation on a regular basis,
    leaving me a bit disgusted at the whole mess. :-/

    -tkc
    Tim Chase, Jun 10, 2013
    #6
  7. Mark Janssen

    Mark Janssen Guest

    > What is clear is the mandate that sets up the framework in the first
    > place:
    >
    > "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing
    > for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to
    > their respective Writings and Discoveries"
    > -- USC Article I, Section 8
    >
    > If it doesn't "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", then
    > it misses the spirit of the law as drafted.


    Exactly, academia has known what this is intuitively for some time.
    It's just the commercial world and the populace at large that is
    confused and exploited. This also disproves Steven D'Aprano's thesis
    that monopoly rights is its purpose, but no.

    > Granted, courts seem to miss that interpretation on a regular basis,
    > leaving me a bit disgusted at the whole mess. :-/


    Yeah, and stranger is that people *defend* the interpretation which
    *takes away* their rights!

    Bizarre!
    --
    MarkJ
    Tacoma, Washington
    Mark Janssen, Jun 10, 2013
    #7
  8. On 06/09/2013 08:30 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
    >> Can you provide any citations for your interpretation? Besides "that's
    >> what the law should be", I mean.

    >
    > I don't think I even have to: the legal code you're citing above is
    > not very clear, consistent, or well-defined at all. As such, it shows
    > that this area remains an area that has yet to be worked out by all
    > parties involved. I would happily volunteer for any interested
    > parties to such a broken system. Alternatively, I've been working on
    > a real fix to IP protections in the form of a unified data model for
    > the internet and data ecosystem.


    Except that's now how law works in the US. All laws are unclear,
    inconsistent or ill-defined. Many laws even contradict existing laws.
    That's why there's a long history and tradition (for good or ill) of
    courts establishing case law to clarify and codify the implementation of
    law, and to resolve incompatibilities and consistencies.

    So while your views may be logical to you, and even common sense, unless
    case law backs you up, your opinions are irrelevant to the actual
    implementation of copyright law.

    As much as many of us are open source or even free software advocates,
    we do have to live within the copyright law currently, and use (or
    exploit) it to our benefit and to preserve our rights. Meaning if I as
    a developer produce code, and if I wish this code to be of use to others
    while still protecting my own rights under copyright law, I have to
    adopt a suitable distribution license. And if I use existing code that
    is already under license, I have to take that into consideration. It's
    not fair use. It's code license. That is why this issue does matter,
    and why the original poster asked his questions in the first place.
    Michael Torrie, Jun 10, 2013
    #8
  9. Mark Janssen

    Rick Johnson Guest

    On Sunday, June 9, 2013 7:26:43 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:

    > When you listen to a song on the radio, do you know how they have a
    > copyright announcer read out the copyright and explicitly list all the
    > rights they keep after each and every song and advertisment?
    > No, me neither. It doesn't happen. Because it's nonsense that you give up
    > copyright by publishing.


    The fact that media distributors think they can control source files in this day and age is just wishful thinking and even more foolish than the ongoing (and fruitless) two decade long "war on drugs". I can't decide which is worse: circumventing evolution for the sake of greed OR for the sake of blind altruism.

    [Tangential Meandering Ahead]

    What these "pseudo moral" fools fail to realize is that a certain segment of any group is doomed to failure. This is not my law, this is the law of the universe in which we live.

    """ But Rick you're heartless. What of the children? If we legalize drugs then kids will be addicts, some will even die!"""

    How many are dying now in the streets from gangland shootouts? How many lives are being ruined and minds are being brainwashed by the highly repetitive music spewing hateful lyrics, indoctrinating another generation into the dead-end thug lifestyle? By fighting a losing war to "protect" degenerates from themselves, we actually elevate the thug and destroy the collective well-being of all humanity.

    Let the drug addicts and alcoholics self-destruct! Put the thugs out of business by legalizing drugs and you take away their easy source of profit. Take away the profit and you reduce the influence of these punks over the minds of children. Take away the influence, and you break the cycle of a thug lifestyle. Only logic can only undo what decades of bleeding heart policieshave utterly destroyed.

    Instead of wasting time saving people who are lost, you should focus your time (and money) on people who have a future, people who can be productive members of society, people who have a true moral compass. How many innocent people have to die before you idiot " pseudo moralist" realize that restricting personal choices is a lost cause? But more importantly, when are you going to realize that the blood of all the innocent lives lost is on your hands!

    But i digress...

    [Back on topic of Copyright/license Issues]

    Maintaining an ownership of "Yes, that was my idea" and "i should benefit from my idea for a limited amount of time" is great, but thinking you can squeeze every penny out of an idea to very detriment of our collective evolution is nothing less than a crime against humanity! (<-- that was NOT an exaggeration!)

    In the 80's huge record companies bilked consumers and artists for hundredsof millions of dollars. They had their day in the sun. But every good ponzie scheme comes to an end. Maybe i'll go cry in the corner for the corporate suits, or maybe not! The real losers where the artist who forfeited an egregious percentage of their potential earnings so the corporate suits couldbuy another jet or another summer home to impress their shallow friends.

    But this whole idea of "i was first so you're not allowed" is just nonsense.. If someone can reproduce your work, then it must not have been much of a leap in the first place. Instead of squalling over who owns an idea (like two children fighting over a toy)try to inject uniqueness into your interpretation of the idea to make it your "very own".

    If you're an inventor, artist, musician, programmer, scientist, etc... yourfocus should be on creating the best idea you possibly can. If the thoughtof someone imitating or copying your idea keeps you awake at night, then don't release your idea to the public.

    In this day and age of the information revolution, any attempt to stop the propagation of your idea is foolish. Just as foolish as thinking that outlawing guns will end murder, or that some illogical "war on drugs" will ever be won, or that seat-belt laws exist because your government "cares" about your well-being -- Oh gawd your a bunch of idiots!

    "Authoritarian policies create side effects that are far worse than the miniscule problems the policies attempted to solve."
    Rick Johnson, Jun 10, 2013
    #9
  10. Mark Janssen

    Mark Janssen Guest

    >>> Can you provide any citations for your interpretation? Besides "that's
    >>> what the law should be", I mean.

    >>
    >> I don't think I even have to: the legal code you're citing above is
    >> not very clear, consistent, or well-defined at all. As such, it shows
    >> that this area remains an area that has yet to be worked out by all
    >> parties involved. I would happily volunteer for any interested
    >> parties to such a broken system. Alternatively, I've been working on
    >> a real fix to IP protections in the form of a unified data model for
    >> the internet and data ecosystem.

    >
    > Except that's now how law works in the US. All laws are unclear,
    > inconsistent or ill-defined.


    Yes, but the issue is that some participants were suggesting that the
    law *is* clear when it is not -- so what is the procedure to follow
    when that is the case?

    >Many laws even contradict existing laws.
    > That's why there's a long history and tradition (for good or ill) of
    > courts establishing case law to clarify and codify the implementation of
    > law, and to resolve incompatibilities and consistencies.
    >
    > So while your views may be logical to you, and even common sense, unless
    > case law backs you up, your opinions are irrelevant to the actual
    > implementation of copyright law.


    No, the system of law is made for, and by the people, so while it may
    not reflect consensus, it isn't necessarily irrelevant and in any case
    where there are people spouting law as if it WAS clear, someone must
    do the job breaking down the walls.

    > As much as many of us are open source or even free software advocates,
    > we do have to live within the copyright law currently,


    We do not have to live within it, we can create it. Where did you get
    this idea?

    --
    MarkJ
    Tacoma, Washington
    Mark Janssen, Jun 10, 2013
    #10
    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. Malte Forkel

    Re-using copyrighted code

    Malte Forkel, Jun 8, 2013, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    135
    Kevin Walzer
    Jun 9, 2013
  2. Andrew Berg

    Re: Re-using copyrighted code

    Andrew Berg, Jun 8, 2013, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    113
    Andrew Berg
    Jun 8, 2013
  3. Benjamin Kaplan

    Re: Re-using copyrighted code

    Benjamin Kaplan, Jun 8, 2013, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    106
    Benjamin Kaplan
    Jun 8, 2013
  4. Andrew Berg

    Re: Re-using copyrighted code

    Andrew Berg, Jun 8, 2013, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    101
    Andrew Berg
    Jun 8, 2013
  5. Mark Janssen

    Re: Re-using copyrighted code

    Mark Janssen, Jun 9, 2013, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    105
    Mark Janssen
    Jun 9, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page