@Sapieha, there are non-obvious things that can be implemented in a software using the instruction set of a processor that can be patented. I have 3 patents on ideas that were implemented in software. The thing that is patented is the idea, and not the source code. I am stating that Bill's idea is not patentable because the idea is not new. P2 contains instructions that were created to use the CLUT for purposes other than a color lookup table. There is prior art of an implementation that uses the CLUT for call and data stacks. Using the CLUT for a lookup table is not patentable, except possibly by Chip, because he came up with the idea.
It may be that Bill's specific idea of using the CLUT to look up instructions on the P2 is patentable, but it seems obvious to me. Bill could still pursue a U.S. patent because the U.S. regulations allow filing within a year after disclosing the invention publicly. However, he would not be able to file in other countries because they require filing before disclosing publicly. That's assuming he hasn't file yet. Maybe he did a provisional filing before disclosing, which would allow him to pursue an international patent.
@evanh, why is making it GPL compatible important? There's no reason it couldn't be licensed under the MIT license.
Anyway I often feel that the best of inventions are obvious after someone has shown you it. Your original LMM was such an invention, small,
simple, obvious. Except nobody had thought of it before. Half the genius of a good invention is seeing the need and the possibility where no one else does.
That states it better than I could. In the case of the LMM and in many other programming techniques, the need virtually dictates an obvious solution in fill-in-the-blanks fashion. But perceiving the need is often where true originality lies.
Absolutely. I did not intend to imply that the posts here are PD. That's a lack of clarity on my part. BTW, fair use and the intent to help people out has generally sorted this out for us.
I have no objection to Bill licensing whatever he wants to. I have no expectation that he would give us code either. I simply don't want it contributed here directly, because doing that breaks the norm we've been operating under for a long time.
Again, somebody somewhere asks a question, gets Bills code quoted, and now that answer has conditions. That's new, and the point of discussion. For me, the only point of discussion. Going forward, I really won't be looking at code that cannot be freely quoted here. I can't, because then I may well entangle somebody out of hand and that is never my intent when participating here in the support forum.
In effect, doing this pollutes the discussion. If it were hosted elsewhere, with a description and an invite to go take a look, great! People can make their choices and move on. Doing it this way can force people, and IMHO, that's an abuse of the venue, given how we've operated all this time.
Re: Useless code.
Well, presented as a gift would very likely have triggered the same reaction from me, because the same issue would have come up.
I'm a speak or be spoken for kind of guy. Additionally, I encourage my peers to do the same thing. No reason not to have this discussion. No harm no foul having it either, and that's how I'm going to play it.
If Bill's code was as dirt simple and trivial as most have pointed out, nobody would be complaining. However like Idbruce I suspect a lot of people want to use it
If Bill's code was as dirt simple and trivial as most have pointed out, nobody would be complaining. However like Idbruce I suspect a lot of people want to use it
Wanting to use it really has nothing to do with it.
Presenting something as a "gift" with strings attached via a license that isn't compatable with how things are usually done in the forum is the issue.
Most of us haven't looked at the code because we don't want to see it under those terms.
The "extra stick in the eye" is that Parallax released the FPGA executable so the forum members could get a preview of the P2 and explore it's possibilies.
To start sticking flags in the ground and claiming turf flies in the face of that openness.
You can think what you want, but participation in this forum will likely decline drastically if people start rubbing their scent glands all over code to mark their turf.
As far as I know you cannot put a work in the Public Domain. Closest you can get is putting a very liberal license on it. Like the MIT for example.
But then forcing forum users to have any license on their forum posts seems a bit of a bad idea to me.
while my information is dated it is (or at least was) possible to release software to the public domain. When you "release" the software your "license" simply states that you relinquish your rights to it. Once put in the public domain that license cannot be revoked.
Again I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one on the internet or TV and my information is dated.
Not that anyone would be interested in any code that I would post or any text in my post but I am now and forever releasing all code I post here and the text of any post into the public domain. It's all free to use and you can do with it whatever you please!! I may not admit to being the author though!
Based on further information from Bruce any code I post here is "as is" with no warranty to it's operation in any way shape of form. By using code I post here the user assumes all risk and liability.
Well, the last time I googled around for how you might put works in the public domain I did not come up with anything. Just now I find this: http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html
Which suggests a way it might be done and what it might mean.
However be aware that if you give code away like that you may still end up liable for any damage it does when someone uses it:
As in:
This “Give-It-Away” license provides no protection for anyone if the donated software causes harm. Obviously one cannot intentionally give away something he knows to be dangerous; that is criminal behavior. But, neither can one escape a lawsuit because his gift was only accidentally harmful. The risk of such a license is far greater than the warm feelings that enrich the soul of the giver. One important value of a license is the opportunity to disclaim warranties and distribute the software “AS IS”. If you give software away, you may retain a risky warranty obligation.
According to articles I linked to in the last post even the possibility of putting stuff in the public domain is debatable.
Further placing things in the public domain is not the same as attaching a "free for all" license.
Particularly in that point that you may still be liable for any damage caused by your program when used.
Better to keep the copyright and license use under terms that make it clear the user takes the risk for any damage caused by the code.
And hence the plethora of long and complex licenses we are drowning in today.
What an intriguing discussion! Just spent a little time reading on this and the root of it appears to be software always has a license and whether or not the PD is a license.
If we consider it a license, similar to compulsory licenses we have in law for various things, then committing something to the PD is simply a matter of writing that license. It also means said work could be withdrawn too, though anyone having a copy with the license would be free to use it as a PD work. Funny how that would work.
If we don't consider the PD a license, then that's a state in law that only happens after sufficient time has passed to trigger the state. There is no revoking it, other than through some odd "broadcast rights" being discussed via International treaty right now. Those basically say a retransmission of a PD work would assign copyright to said transmission. Seems a bit of a land grab to me, but it's still under discussion...
I'm inclined to take the more safe and conservative and tested view that all software comes with a license of sorts. However you choose to navigate that, the legal test appears to be an "overt act" that conveys the clear intent for the work to be a PD work. Seems clear enough for me. Just make it really obvious.
A hold harmless clause or statement of not suitable for any particular fit, form, function or purpose would be wise too, if somebody is interested in the nitty-gritty details.
@Prof_Braino: Yes, simplest is best. I am wrong on MIT / PD, and the lack of clarity on PD is why. Best to just imply forum code is MIT licensed, and that's my position going forward as it best preserve the mode of discussions and the norms we've operated on all this time. We shall see what Parallax decides on this, and I've said my piece on it now looking to go back to learning P2 stuff.
Re: Rage.
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't have rage just deep concern. The forum dynamics are at issue for me, and that's it as I've written a lot of times now.
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?
What is wrong with the Creative Commons license Bill used? You could always add a section that absolves you of responsibility if you want.
Thing is Phil, that creative commons page links to a definition of Public Domain that says nothing about the possibility of giving up copyright that way.
Isn't there any link to a clause of the Berne Convention or some such that talks about this?
No, I don't have any specific links, but Phil just provided some nice information and links, but this information does not include the provision for disclaimers (Or at least I did not see any at first glance). Although I normally don't use them, I have used them in the past, and it is wise to do so. If you put something into public domain, a disclaimer could help to protect you from damages that someone might incur by using your code. I would always suggest adding a disclaimer.
That's the problem with Public Domain contributions: you can't attach any strings to it -- none. Otherwise, it becomes just another license; which, if you want tort protection, brings us back to the MIT license. 'Round and 'round we go...
That's the problem with Public Domain contributions: you can't attach any strings to it -- none. Otherwise, it becomes just another license; which, if you want tort protection, brings us back to the MIT license. 'Round and 'round we go...
When something is put into the public domain it is merely just another license in which you give up your rights to compensation, however you may still be held liable if damages do occur through the use of the code.
Pick a license, any license, it is just a contract with terms and conditions pertaining to use. The author should be able to choose the terms and conditions pertaining to the use of his copyrighted work. I don't see how the MIT license offers any type of tort protection, besides a simple disclaimer.
I have 3 patents on ideas that were implemented in software. The thing that is patented is the idea, and not the source code. I am stating that Bill's idea is not patentable because the idea is not new. ...
It may be that Bill's specific idea of using the CLUT to look up instructions on the P2 is patentable, but it seems obvious to me.
AFAIK, methods are patentable, not ideas. Ideas are "a dime a dozen", just having the idea doesn't mean you know how to do it. I think there is far too many invalid patents granted, on extremely fuzzy descriptions, just because of that misunderstanding (or manipulation maybe).
The obviousness test for patents needs to be a question about the method, ie: "What method(s) would I use to perform this idea?" If I can't easily come up with the same method, without peeking, then the filer has a non-obvious method.
The exact text of the implementation is always licensed. The method defined by the implementation can be patented.
@evanh, why is making it GPL compatible important? There's no reason it couldn't be licensed under the MIT license.
Sure, MIT licence is fine and is indeed GPL compatible.
GPL is a rather important license due to it's levelling of the playing field. It's a strong license in terms of encouraging cooperative development at the commercial level and it's also proven.
In fact, the MIT license is a perfect example of a public domain license which includes a disclaimer. So I suggest, not advise, anyone wishing to put their code into the public domain to simply use the MIT license.
Which is as follows:
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.
Please note, that with this license, you would be giving up all rights to any financial compensation, but still may be held liable for damages.
EDIT: Please note, that the MIT license, is just a license. MIT license, what is it? Do they have a copyright on the terms and conditions
Sure, MIT licence is fine and is indeed GPL compatible.
Um, really? The GPL is somewhat more "viral" and restrictive because it demands the sharing of source code unto unlimited (re)generations and derivatives, whereas the MIT license does not.
When something is put into the public domain it is merely just another license in which you give up your rights to compensation
No it is not. Public Domain is technically defined in law. It is the state works enter when their copyright term expires, for example. Do look up the definition of Public Domain".
I don't see how the MIT license offers any type of tort protection...
It is a license the terms of which basically say that you can use their code only if you do not hold them responsible for whatever happens when you do.
I presume that deal has some legal standing otherwise an institution like MIT would not still be doing it.
No it is not. Public Domain is technically defined in law. It is the state works enter when their copyright term expires, for example. Do look up the definition of Public Domain".
To truly be in the public domain, the protection must have expired. That is correct. Basically, the MIT license is the next best thing to public domain. I stand corrected.
It is a license the terms of which basically say that you can use their code only if you do not hold them responsible for whatever happens when you do.
I presume that deal has some legal standing otherwise an institution like MIT would not still be doing it.
That is a simple disclaimer, and it only offers partial protection, because some states and countries do not recognize or limit the use of disclaimers. For the states and countries that disallow or limit the use of disclaimers, you could still be held liable.
Um, really? The GPL is somewhat more "viral" and restrictive because it demands the sharing of source code unto unlimited (re)generations and derivatives, whereas the MIT license does not.
Phil, please reread what I said to Dave. The whole point of encouraging compatibility is to get away from the either/or debate.
The link correctly says that in most EU countries (and also the non-EU country Norway), there is no 'public domain', but the link is incorrect in its suggested workaround, namely:
I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose,
I spent a day with the company lawyer (or to be specific, the IP/Copyright lawyer of our mother company), and he said the trap we all (specifically us software types) walk into is that word 'use', which is not enough. Even with the sentence above 'use for any purpose' there is one thing it does not allow you to do: Modify the work. It HAS to explicitly state that you have the right to modify the work. The lawyer said we had to stop trying to thing logically like an engineer, this is about law and they use a different language. He said there are (IIRC) about four clauses that you have to explicitly state for a copyright owner to give you all those rights that we (wrongly) believe would be covered by 'use for any purpose' (btw that guy has spent a lot of time in court about copyright issues).
It all made sense when he explained the reason: It's all about the origin of Copyright, specifically with regards to music composers. There was a time when anyone was free to rip off anyone who composed a song, tune, or classical work. Copyright was found necessary, and was designed to protect the composer. The 'right to modify' issue is about someone modifying a composer's work. Specifically: A publishing house may buy the music from a composer and get the rights to print and sell (and later: record) the music for all the future, without ever again paying the composer any money (and a lot of songwriters did just that: Compose a song, and immediately sell all the rights to the publisher to have food money for the family the next day). The buyer of the work may even prevent the composer from performing his/her own music in public.
However, what they don't get the right to, is to modify the original music. That remains the composer's right, unless explicitly stated in the (what we would now call) license. That all makes sense, when you think about it: "Buy my work, sell it, get rich, but don't change it. I composed it, I'm still the originator even if you bought it."
This applies to this day. If you want to use and MODIFY someone's code you need to check that the license explicitly gives you the right to modify. 'Use' does not cut it, in any shape or form. And yes, 'use for any purpose' doesn't even give you the right to sell. That's one of the other of the clauses the lawyer mentioned as not covered by 'use'.
Comments
As far as I know you cannot put a work in the Public Domain. Closest you can get is putting a very liberal license on it. Like the MIT for example.
But then forcing forum users to have any license on their forum posts seems a bit of a bad idea to me.
It may be that Bill's specific idea of using the CLUT to look up instructions on the P2 is patentable, but it seems obvious to me. Bill could still pursue a U.S. patent because the U.S. regulations allow filing within a year after disclosing the invention publicly. However, he would not be able to file in other countries because they require filing before disclosing publicly. That's assuming he hasn't file yet. Maybe he did a provisional filing before disclosing, which would allow him to pursue an international patent.
@evanh, why is making it GPL compatible important? There's no reason it couldn't be licensed under the MIT license.
-Phil
Absolutely. I did not intend to imply that the posts here are PD. That's a lack of clarity on my part. BTW, fair use and the intent to help people out has generally sorted this out for us.
I have no objection to Bill licensing whatever he wants to. I have no expectation that he would give us code either. I simply don't want it contributed here directly, because doing that breaks the norm we've been operating under for a long time.
Again, somebody somewhere asks a question, gets Bills code quoted, and now that answer has conditions. That's new, and the point of discussion. For me, the only point of discussion. Going forward, I really won't be looking at code that cannot be freely quoted here. I can't, because then I may well entangle somebody out of hand and that is never my intent when participating here in the support forum.
In effect, doing this pollutes the discussion. If it were hosted elsewhere, with a description and an invite to go take a look, great! People can make their choices and move on. Doing it this way can force people, and IMHO, that's an abuse of the venue, given how we've operated all this time.
Re: Useless code.
Well, presented as a gift would very likely have triggered the same reaction from me, because the same issue would have come up.
Just play the game, Charlie Brown
Wanting to use it really has nothing to do with it.
Presenting something as a "gift" with strings attached via a license that isn't compatable with how things are usually done in the forum is the issue.
Most of us haven't looked at the code because we don't want to see it under those terms.
The "extra stick in the eye" is that Parallax released the FPGA executable so the forum members could get a preview of the P2 and explore it's possibilies.
To start sticking flags in the ground and claiming turf flies in the face of that openness.
You can think what you want, but participation in this forum will likely decline drastically if people start rubbing their scent glands all over code to mark their turf.
C.W.
while my information is dated it is (or at least was) possible to release software to the public domain. When you "release" the software your "license" simply states that you relinquish your rights to it. Once put in the public domain that license cannot be revoked.
Again I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one on the internet or TV and my information is dated.
Based on further information from Bruce any code I post here is "as is" with no warranty to it's operation in any way shape of form. By using code I post here the user assumes all risk and liability.
Well, the last time I googled around for how you might put works in the public domain I did not come up with anything. Just now I find this:
http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html
Which suggests a way it might be done and what it might mean.
However be aware that if you give code away like that you may still end up liable for any damage it does when someone uses it:
As in:
This “Give-It-Away” license provides no protection for anyone if the donated software causes harm. Obviously one cannot intentionally give away something he knows to be dangerous; that is criminal behavior. But, neither can one escape a lawsuit because his gift was only accidentally harmful. The risk of such a license is far greater than the warm feelings that enrich the soul of the giver. One important value of a license is the opportunity to disclaim warranties and distribute the software “AS IS”. If you give software away, you may retain a risky warranty obligation.
From here: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225
I believe that would do the trick
Do you have any links to info on this?
According to articles I linked to in the last post even the possibility of putting stuff in the public domain is debatable.
Further placing things in the public domain is not the same as attaching a "free for all" license.
Particularly in that point that you may still be liable for any damage caused by your program when used.
Better to keep the copyright and license use under terms that make it clear the user takes the risk for any damage caused by the code.
And hence the plethora of long and complex licenses we are drowning in today.
If we consider it a license, similar to compulsory licenses we have in law for various things, then committing something to the PD is simply a matter of writing that license. It also means said work could be withdrawn too, though anyone having a copy with the license would be free to use it as a PD work. Funny how that would work.
If we don't consider the PD a license, then that's a state in law that only happens after sufficient time has passed to trigger the state. There is no revoking it, other than through some odd "broadcast rights" being discussed via International treaty right now. Those basically say a retransmission of a PD work would assign copyright to said transmission. Seems a bit of a land grab to me, but it's still under discussion...
I'm inclined to take the more safe and conservative and tested view that all software comes with a license of sorts. However you choose to navigate that, the legal test appears to be an "overt act" that conveys the clear intent for the work to be a PD work. Seems clear enough for me. Just make it really obvious.
A hold harmless clause or statement of not suitable for any particular fit, form, function or purpose would be wise too, if somebody is interested in the nitty-gritty details.
@Prof_Braino: Yes, simplest is best. I am wrong on MIT / PD, and the lack of clarity on PD is why. Best to just imply forum code is MIT licensed, and that's my position going forward as it best preserve the mode of discussions and the norms we've operated on all this time. We shall see what Parallax decides on this, and I've said my piece on it now looking to go back to learning P2 stuff.
Re: Rage.
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't have rage just deep concern. The forum dynamics are at issue for me, and that's it as I've written a lot of times now.
-Phil
Isn't there any link to a clause of the Berne Convention or some such that talks about this?
No, I don't have any specific links, but Phil just provided some nice information and links, but this information does not include the provision for disclaimers (Or at least I did not see any at first glance). Although I normally don't use them, I have used them in the past, and it is wise to do so. If you put something into public domain, a disclaimer could help to protect you from damages that someone might incur by using your code. I would always suggest adding a disclaimer.
Bruce
That's the problem with Public Domain contributions: you can't attach any strings to it -- none. Otherwise, it becomes just another license; which, if you want tort protection, brings us back to the MIT license. 'Round and 'round we go...
-Phil
When something is put into the public domain it is merely just another license in which you give up your rights to compensation, however you may still be held liable if damages do occur through the use of the code.
Pick a license, any license, it is just a contract with terms and conditions pertaining to use. The author should be able to choose the terms and conditions pertaining to the use of his copyrighted work. I don't see how the MIT license offers any type of tort protection, besides a simple disclaimer.
-Phil
The obviousness test for patents needs to be a question about the method, ie: "What method(s) would I use to perform this idea?" If I can't easily come up with the same method, without peeking, then the filer has a non-obvious method.
The exact text of the implementation is always licensed. The method defined by the implementation can be patented.
Sure, MIT licence is fine and is indeed GPL compatible.
GPL is a rather important license due to it's levelling of the playing field. It's a strong license in terms of encouraging cooperative development at the commercial level and it's also proven.
Which is as follows:
Please note, that with this license, you would be giving up all rights to any financial compensation, but still may be held liable for damages.
EDIT: Please note, that the MIT license, is just a license. MIT license, what is it? Do they have a copyright on the terms and conditions
-Phil
-Phil
No it is not. Public Domain is technically defined in law. It is the state works enter when their copyright term expires, for example. Do look up the definition of Public Domain". It is a license the terms of which basically say that you can use their code only if you do not hold them responsible for whatever happens when you do.
I presume that deal has some legal standing otherwise an institution like MIT would not still be doing it.
You are both correct and incorrect.
To truly be in the public domain, the protection must have expired. That is correct. Basically, the MIT license is the next best thing to public domain. I stand corrected.
That is a simple disclaimer, and it only offers partial protection, because some states and countries do not recognize or limit the use of disclaimers. For the states and countries that disallow or limit the use of disclaimers, you could still be held liable.
Phil, please reread what I said to Dave. The whole point of encouraging compatibility is to get away from the either/or debate.
It all made sense when he explained the reason: It's all about the origin of Copyright, specifically with regards to music composers. There was a time when anyone was free to rip off anyone who composed a song, tune, or classical work. Copyright was found necessary, and was designed to protect the composer. The 'right to modify' issue is about someone modifying a composer's work. Specifically: A publishing house may buy the music from a composer and get the rights to print and sell (and later: record) the music for all the future, without ever again paying the composer any money (and a lot of songwriters did just that: Compose a song, and immediately sell all the rights to the publisher to have food money for the family the next day). The buyer of the work may even prevent the composer from performing his/her own music in public.
However, what they don't get the right to, is to modify the original music. That remains the composer's right, unless explicitly stated in the (what we would now call) license. That all makes sense, when you think about it: "Buy my work, sell it, get rich, but don't change it. I composed it, I'm still the originator even if you bought it."
This applies to this day. If you want to use and MODIFY someone's code you need to check that the license explicitly gives you the right to modify. 'Use' does not cut it, in any shape or form. And yes, 'use for any purpose' doesn't even give you the right to sell. That's one of the other of the clauses the lawyer mentioned as not covered by 'use'.
-Tor