Forum > Other

Question about license.

<< < (2/3) > >>

MarkMLl:
I think you're entering uncharted territory. I am obviously not a lawyer, but the way I look at it is this:

* The files, unmodified, are the copyrighted property of the original author except where they're a statement of fact. Hence my thread of a few days ago about separating definition and implementation.

* Leaving aside portions which can't be copyrighted due to being a statement of fact, a symbol-by-symbol transcript which preserves the "artistic presentation"- i.e. comments, variable names, and possibly layout- can reasonably be expected to infringe on the copyright of the original author so can reasonably be expected to be subject to his chosen license.

* A cleanroom reimplementation, which relies on an analysis of the original author's code but is provably not a symbol-by-symbol transcript, reasonably certainly does not infringe on his copyright but might infringe on (attempts at) patenting "business methods" etc.

I think that most of us peruse projects on Sourceforge and Github, and use what we've learned as part of our accumulated experience. My own preference is to make "with reference to" attributions in my code so that if it's ever published I can't be accused of evading my responsibilities, and I think that I'd argue that it's no worse than designing equipment or writing a monograph with reference to books and papers in a university library (a company's technical library, which may describe techniques which may only be used under licence, is a different matter).

Finally, I put something on Github a couple of years ago which was a distillation of various material of traceable provenance, which if the rules had been strictly followed couldn't have existed (there was a loop between Torvalds who favours GPL2, some material he'd referred to which was explicitly GPL3, and another party who claimed one of the CCs).

MarkMLl

Fred vS:

--- Quote from: Thaddy on June 09, 2022, 05:31:32 pm ---GPL3 - if that is the only licence - is not compatible. It is deliberately restrictieve, even for interfaces.
(Actually that is a good thing.)

--- End quote ---

IMHO it is a good thing for applications but restrict the license to GPL3 for a library is a few "stingy".
Re-IMHO, for a library, a minimum LGPL is better.

But this is a other story and, of course, the creator is the King and choose what he want.

Thaddy:
No, what is given away for free should always be free. GPL3 keeps free software for free, with the single exception that it can never be used commercially unless due care is taken. ( and I did half of of a law degree because I was bored, 1981/1982)

MarkMLl:

--- Quote from: Thaddy on June 09, 2022, 11:10:45 pm ---No, what is given away for free should always be free. GPL3 keeps free software for free, with the single exception that it can never be used commercially unless due care is taken. ( and I did half of of a law degree because I was bored, 1981/1982)

--- End quote ---

But what is free? Software builds on foundations provided by others, and reading sourcecode to understand how those foundations can be built upon should be allowed.

OK, let's try another tack. A valid patent makes explicit claims about the nature of the innovation, and provides extensive citations of prior art. Perhaps we should demand that restrictive licenses like the (L)GPL make clear exactly what the author claims to be his own work, otherwise the entire work falls under the Telephone Directory dictum (i.e. the content is a statement of fact so can't be copyrighted, but the presentation can).

MarkMLl

SymbolicFrank:
You cannot copy or translate it, but you can rewrite it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version