Code in the forums, should it have to be released as MIT or public domain?
ctwardell
Posts: 1,716
Given the MIT requirement of the OBEX and the generally OS/OHS spirit of the forums, should there be an official requirement that all code published in the forums be released under the MIT license or as public domain?
I'm talking about about what is specifically posted, not the entire work surrounding it.
So if someone posts a portion of something larger in order to get help with that specific code, they can stake no claim to the posted code, but that doesn't apply to the entire work.
Say someone is working on an I2C driver for part of a commercial project and needs a little help with a specific section of code.
The parts of code that they put in the forum cannot be considered proprietary, but that does not force them to release the entire driver.
I don't think the use of the Parallax Forums to attempt to stake claims to the use of Parallax products is appropriate.
C.W.
I'm talking about about what is specifically posted, not the entire work surrounding it.
So if someone posts a portion of something larger in order to get help with that specific code, they can stake no claim to the posted code, but that doesn't apply to the entire work.
Say someone is working on an I2C driver for part of a commercial project and needs a little help with a specific section of code.
The parts of code that they put in the forum cannot be considered proprietary, but that does not force them to release the entire driver.
I don't think the use of the Parallax Forums to attempt to stake claims to the use of Parallax products is appropriate.
C.W.
Comments
<Edited to comply with OP("we") members rules.>
Ray
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works
Copyright is automatic based on first to publish
Even clean room is covered if the end result is identical; example protection for 2-3 word jingles.
Attribution is covered by an author's "moral rights", unless explicitly waived.
Even MIT licensed code is copyrighted, that is why the license explicitly waives any rights.
Copyright is not patent. Copyright covers use of copy only. Patent covers the use of ideas.
You can not patent ideas that are already well known such as using an index to an array to get data.
Parallax requires MIT license on obex items. I agree it should also require MIT license or none at all on entire works published on it's forums, else such work should be removed. Added: This will never happen though.
If a person wants to post code, so be it..... Why should every piece of code published automatically go into Public Domain? If a person wants to share his work, then attach a license to it. PERIOD
I don't think I'd be strongly opposed to requiring MIT licenses for forum posts, but for now, I'm inclined to oppose such a requirement weakly.
Of course, if someone has some super software they think will make them rich, then it wouldn't be a very smart idea to post it to the forum.
I'm strongly against software patents.
I do not see where the confusion is, because it is simple to understand.
In my opinion, a person should be free to publish work within a public forum, and not have to worry about licensing issues unless they specifically want to share it with the rest of the world.
As I mentioned, copryright is automatic, why make it more complicated?
Bruce has almost talked me over to the other side.
I generally don't worry about using someone elses code in my own projects. I'd add atribution and not expect to use it in a commercial project but to me code posted in the forum has "go ahead a try this" all over it.
I see Phil's video capture code, and I want to try it. I don't ask Phil for express permission to try it on my own Propeller Backpack. I'd make sure I had permission before using it in something I sell but I'm expecting Phil whats me to give his code a try.
Cite this automatic "law" please. That is, please provide evidence that copyright is automatic without claiming it.
A quick google around will find what you want.
Basically if you create a copyrightable work you automatically have copyright on it. No registration or whatever required.
What I can't find out is how to put a work in the "Public Domain". As far as I can tell it's impossible. Unless you die and people wait 70 years or whatever.
The best you can do is attach a very open license to it.
Unfortunately, I think Bruce is correct about this.
Here's a Wikipedia quote:
This is one of the many ways copyright law is so strange (and wrong). I think the driving force behind much of copyright law is Disney's fear that Mickey Mouse will become public domain.
You attach a license saying no restrictions on use. Simple
I know I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier but I have a question that relates to the complexity of this.
Let's say for the sake of the conversation I start writing a piece of code and as is normally the case it doesn't work right. So I make a post to this forum asking for help with it. I wrote the code and my ownership and copyright at this point is clear. Now let's say someone looks at my code and sees the problem with it. In the process of helping me with my code makes changes to it and adds some missing pieces and posts it here on the forum. Who owns the code now? Can I use that code without violating the copyrights of the person that helped me. If this code now gets used in a commercial product do I have to give credit? Is the person that helped entitled to a percentage of the profit?
I am not a lawyer, but I would say that when you receive help and corrections from someone else, and that becomes the final work, I would say the work is then co-authored.
In my opinion, a person should be free to publish work within a public forum, and not have to worry about licensing issues unless they specifically want to share it with the rest of the world.
Well, if it is published in a public forum, it is shared with the rest of the world.
If the forum is MIT, then people who come here to learn, get help, build, can do so with few worries. If we start incorporating lots of licenses, then there are far more worries. Worse, people could be reading something, not understand and then what?
And this forum is popular because of that. Same with the OBEX.
Interesting thought experiment:
Two forums. One MIT, the other is read the license before using, reading, etc...
Which do you think would get more traffic?
Naturally, the traffic here makes posting up new products, licensable code and other things attractive right? I think so, but I also think just dropping code here with some license that may or may not make any sense when combined with MIT abuses that traffic a little. What if Bill had open quoted his licensed code? Bunch of us right now would be stuck with having seen it, etc... and that would have implications for working on other projects that may not be compatible with the license.
(Which is why I asked him not to open quote)
Now, Chip looked at his code, turned right around and proposed an enhancement, quoted openly. How does that work? Bill offers to consider it later, and let's say he gets it sorted out and package that all under the license chosen for the initial release? Ugh... That's all kinds of broken, IMHO.
On the other hand, Bill putting a description up and licensing terms means it's clear the code isn't just MIT forum code, which I think is really good. Anyone interested can go and fetch it too, then consider what they want to do given whatever license it has on it. Bill gets the benefit of the traffic, and nobody is obligated for merely surfing the forum they surf each day. I do wonder about Chip posting something back to the forum though... Not sure how that works at all, and a few more people, a code body or two and we've got scenarios that are just messy!
IMHO, that's the primary reason for a blanket forum declaration. Without it, the place breaks down quickly, and if we have an influx of newcomers due to P2, what happens then? It would not take much to be unable to talk about stuff openly, and who really wants that here? It might make very good sense elsewhere, and when associated to licensed bodies of code, and the typical implementation of that kind of discussion is a closed forum where users register and posts are not visible to the general public, otherwise how does all this stuff really work?
Yes, automatic, however registration is required to proceed with legal infringement actions, in the US.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html
The specific law is:
vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work
are coowners of copyright in the work.
If felt that someone was infringing upon copyrighted material and I wanted to file suit for infringement, I would imagine that I could register at that time, not at the time of creation or publishing. However, a registered copyright will give you higher damages.
Requiring a published license for every piece of code will also become a major deterent for active forum participation and plus add additional financial burden to Parallax. For example:
Is this the correct way to write this?
CON 'Multiply the external frequency by 16. _CLKMODE = XTAL1 + PLL16X 'Specify the speed of the external crystal. _XINFREQ = 5_000_000 DAT {{ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ TERMS OF USE: MIT License │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │Copyright(C) 2012. Bruce Drummond. │ │ │ │Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and │ │associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, │ │including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense,│ │and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so,│ │subject to the following conditions: │ │ │ │The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial │ │portions of the Software. │ │ │ │THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT│ │LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. │ │IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER │ │LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION│ │WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ }}Obviously not
Think of the server drive space being utilized and the bandwidth just to transfer that license information for a stupid question.
Other than that, and human nature being what it is, if you don't want other people using it -- with or without attribution -- just don't post it here. Obviously, authors deserve credit for what they produce; and, absent any specific license requirement, attribution should be still given. It's just the right thing to do. But dragging the US legal code into the discussion, in a forum that amounts to a de facto free-for-all, is a waste fo time.
-Phil
Here is how it works....
Literary work is copyrighted the moment it is written
Copyright notice and registration is optional.
If a copyright notice is provided, higher damages will be awarded.
If the work is provided with a notice and the work is registered, then you can be awarded maximum damages, otherwise maximum damages cannot be obtained.
Obviously that is very silly.
This is what I wrote. I have nothing more to add.
Lucky for me and everyone else in the forum, you are a nice guy that likes to share his knowledge. However, I have seen some of your impressive work from which you could have undoubtedly made money from. I also believe in sharing, but I don't think it should be a free for all, just because it is published.
Or "Steamboat Willie"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamboat_Willie
-Phil
It is just my opinion, because it is governed by law....
Unless there is a license attached to code that permits you to use the code, I would not advise using it, and I think that is obvious.