Eleanor McHugh DE I. P.
EM> absolutely no need for attribution.
It’s correct only for USA (and probably few other countries). In most
jurisdiction public domain works require attribution.
Eleanor McHugh wrote:
Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brainsraise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
To be honest, in the U.S. I would not consider anonymous works to be in
the public domain unless there was some very visible and carefully
worded statement that the work was in the public domain, such as seen
here: Creative Commons — Copyright-Only Dedication (based on United States law) or Public Domain Certification. The reason is
that in the U.S. all “creative” works (including software) are
automatically protected by copyright, even if the copyright holder is
not known. This of course produces huge numbers of abandoned works that
can’t be used and is amazingly stupid, but it’s the law.
Eleanor McHugh DE I. P.
Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer.
It’s correct only for USA (and probably few other countries). In most
jurisdiction public domain works require attribution.
EM> Interesting. So in those jurisdictions a widely distributed
anonymous
EM> work wouldn’t count as public domain?
US law defines public domain as (according to [1]) “the Work may be
freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built
upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any purpose, commercial or
non-commercial, and in any way, including by methods that have not yet
been invented or conceived”
Berne Convention [2] standing as base for international copyright law
(signed by 162 countries [3]) had defined so called “Moral Rights”
[2.1]. This rights are independent from author’s rights to sell,
modify and so on (“economical rights”) which she can pass to other
entities.
Moral Rights are assigned automatically by the fact of creating an
artistic work. By creating you receive right “to claim authorship of
the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other
modification <…> the said work <…>” [2.1]. This rights are
inalienable: you can’t reject to be under protection. US has neglected
concept of inalienable Moral Rights.
So US public domain works are not necessary public domain, e. g., in
Europe.
Now to anonymous work.
As mentioned above, moral right are assigned automatically regardless
of author. Anonymous (and pseudonymous) works are protected by the
same laws with one exception: if author’s name can’t be determined
with confidence then this work is protected for 50 years since it’s
been lawfully made available to public. [2.2]
If anonymous/pseudonymous author has claimed his identity he receive
standard protection for his life and 50 years after (this period can
be extended in his country).
[1] Creative Commons — Copyright-Only Dedication (based on United States law) or Public Domain Certification
[2] BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF LITERARY AND ARTISTIC
WORKS: BERNE CONVENTION, AS REVISED
[2.1] BERNE CONVENTION, AS REVISED - Article 6bis
[2.2] BERNE CONVENTION, AS REVISED - Article 7
[3]
List of parties to international copyright agreements - Wikipedia
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 01:38:09AM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
dissemination of their work…
Public domain is close to what I want … however, I think the open
source gang has some problems with “public domain”. And I want something
that says if someone figures out a way to destroy a city with my code
that I’m not the one who gets tried for war crimes.
That disclaimer is something you can just attach to the code. If
someone later strips the disclaimer and passes it on, THAT person is the
only one liable for the uses of the code (if there’s any liability to be
had), generally speaking. Disclaimers are not particular to licenses,
and can be treated as separate entities (in at least most jurisdictions;
keep in mind that I’m speaking from a USian perspective).
The major reason open source advocates dislike public domain is that
openness of the source is not enforceable in later iterations. For
instance, a book in the public domain can, with a few modifications such
as adding a nifty red cover and a preface, become a copyrighted work,
copyrighted by the guy that wrote the preface and added the cover rather
than by the guy who wrote the book itself.
Another, less common complaint (at least, less common in the US) is that
in some jurisdictions there’s no such thing as “public domain”. France,
for instance, suffers some shortcomings in this regard: you can’t
completely free your code (or whatever) from any legal encumbrances at
all whatsoever except by asserting copyright and licensing it with a
statement like “No rights reserved.”
My personal preference for licensing is effectively a public domain
duplicating license, plus strong inheritance so that all derivative
works must be similarly licensed. I also tend to prefer strong
protections against plagiarism. That’s why I created the CCD CopyWrite
license that I use for basically everything I do where I’m not required
by contract (or other circumstances) to license things otherwise. I’d
just release everything I wrote into the public domain if I wasn’t
concerned about people creating derivative works and taking them OUT of
the public domain.
I’m not a fan of forced distribution models of open source
licensing, by the way – in case you were curious.
On 3/10/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky [email protected] wrote:
“This software is copyright 2007 M. Edward Borasky. Here is the source. You can do anything you want with it, but if you hurt someone with it, it’s your fault and not mine. If you make any money with it, it’s your money and not mine. If you do something with it that makes you famous, it’s your fame and not mine. And I can’t prevent you from compiling it and distributing the binaries without distributing the source, so you can do that too.”
–
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.
I am quite surprised to hear that from you. I always have seen you as
a practical guy and I intend that as a compliment.
Now the exact wording of your licence simply means that someone can
take your code away from you (theoretically not because you can prove
prior art by definition) but you might need a lawyer etc.
I feel that the GPL is not easy to use but I also feel that it is
important.
I am nervous about the BSD or Ruby licence, although they are
convenient for sure - in the short run.
I have the feeling that they are naive and that the wonderful things
they do not really
protect might be taken away from the community one day.
But I am quite a pessimist.
Cheers
Robert
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 01:39:23AM +0900, I. P. wrote:
Eleanor McHugh DE I. P.
EM> absolutely no need for attribution.
It’s correct only for USA (and probably few other countries). In most
jurisdiction public domain works require attribution.
Oddly enough, licenses that include attribution requirements are legally
often very good choices if you don’t want any attribution requirement.
By failing to provide any self-attribution in the copyrightable work
and/or the license, you end up requiring that all existing attribution
(namely, none) be maintained in future redistributions. Public domain,
meanwhile, makes no statement about attribution at all – which can get
you in hot water if you don’t provide any attribution, since it is
generally assumed that even where distribution is not controlled,
attribution is still necessary for an honest representation of the
circumstances of distribution.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 03:28:46AM +0900, Eleanor McHugh wrote:
On 11 Mar 2007, at 16:39, I. P. wrote:
EM> absolutely no need for attribution.
It’s correct only for USA (and probably few other countries). In most
jurisdiction public domain works require attribution.Interesting. So in those jurisdictions a widely distributed anonymous
work wouldn’t count as public domain?
If it’s public domain and anonymous, one typically would cover one’s
backside by attributing it to “anonymous” or similarly indicating that
the source is unknown. Anonymity doesn’t make something other than
public domain, but failure to indicate attribution can get one in legal
trouble with even public domain works in certain circumstances.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 04:41:09AM +0900, I. P. wrote:
Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer.
Neither am I.
modification <…> the said work <…>" [2.1]. This rights are
inalienable: you can’t reject to be under protection. US has neglected
concept of inalienable Moral Rights.
Only insofar as the Berne Convention applies this concept of “Moral
Rights” to copyright law. Considering that I reject the notion of
copyright as having anything to do with morality, I don’t have a problem
with that. Only attribution rights would qualify, in my estimation, as
being related to an “inalienable right”.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 03:53:05AM +0900, Robert D. wrote:
convenient for sure - in the short run.
I have the feeling that they are naive and that the wonderful things
they do not really
protect might be taken away from the community one day.But I am quite a pessimist.
Optimist: the glass is half full
Pessimist: the glass is half empty
Cynic: the glass is half empty, but it’s probably not something you
wanted to drink anyway
I’m a cynic, according to my own definition: an optimist that has
learned from life experience. I am concerned with the notion that the
BSD license doesn’t ensure that we will always have source code
available to us when we get the binary. On the other hand, I am more
concerned that the forced distribution of source code mandated by the
GPL is actually more restrictive in practice. For one thing, it
prevents anyone that didn’t have the foresight to get the source at the
same time as the binaries from redistributing the binaries in his or her
possession, unless he or she can still find the source. For another, it
requires, in many cases, for those with limited resources to choose
between maintaining an archive of source code with redundant backups for
several years after distributing binaries, or simply not distributing.
I definitely prefer the BSD license. It would be better to have access
to a binary with no source than neither (to compare worst-case
scenarios).
Of course, I find both annoyingly limited in applicability to a single
form of copyrightable work, and the BSD license’s applicability to
derivative works is ambiguous. I still prefer the BSD license over the
GPL, especially considering recent examples of the FSF threatening legal
action against small community Linux distributions for debatable
violations of GPL terms.
On 11 Mar 2007, at 19:29, Timothy H. wrote:
To be honest, in the U.S. I would not consider anonymous works to
be in the public domain unless there was some very visible and
carefully worded statement that the work was in the public domain,
such as seen here: About The Licenses - Creative Commons
publicdomain/. The reason is that in the U.S. all “creative” works
(including software) are automatically protected by copyright, even
if the copyright holder is not known. This of course produces huge
numbers of abandoned works that can’t be used and is amazingly
stupid, but it’s the law.
Well you learn something new every day 
I must find out if the situation is similar here in the UK.
Ellie
Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
On 12 Mar 2007, at 01:20, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
give away.
)
I must admit that I don’t have any interest in my ‘old’ code at all,
so the thought of other people running off with it and doing their
own thing really doesn’t bother me. Been there, done that, bored now.
If someone can figure out a way of making millions off some random
crufty code I threw together as a quick hack one Saturday then good
luck to them
The couple of open-source projects I’m currently trying to get up and
running are BSD licensed for the simple reason that the people
they’re targeted at are generally BSD-license friendly, but all the
commercial code I’ve written has been locked under proprietary
licenses and if I ever had to do anything similar in the future, well
a good clean-room rewrite would be a blessing in disguise.
Ellie
Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
Robert D. wrote:
I am quite surprised to hear that from you. I always have seen you as
a practical guy and I intend that as a compliment.
Now the exact wording of your licence simply means that someone can
take your code away from you (theoretically not because you can prove
prior art by definition) but you might need a lawyer etc.
That’s what I meant. It’s a statement that I can’t prevent someone
from taking it away from me. If I want to keep my code to myself, I can
do that simply by keeping it to myself. If I want to give it away, I’ll
give it away. What I can’t do is give someone else’s intellectual
property away.
I feel that the GPL is not easy to use but I also feel that it is
important.
I am nervous about the BSD or Ruby licence, although they are
convenient for sure - in the short run.
I have the feeling that they are naive and that the wonderful things
they do not really
protect might be taken away from the community one day.But I am quite a pessimist.
Well, in the specific case of Ruby, I don’t think it will be “taken
away” so much as it will be “purchased.” My license says essentially,
“Here is this idea I had expressed in software. If you are willing to do
the work to make a business out of it, great, I don’t expect anything in
return for it.”
Then again, I’ve been programming a long time, and intend to keep doing
it till they pry my cold dead fingers off the keyboard. (Unless, of
course, I figure out a way to turn thought directly into code without
requiring tongues or fingers. That I might not give away. )
–
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/
If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
rabbits fire.
On Mar 9, 9:41 pm, Yannick G. [email protected] wrote:
Just a quick question: I’m sick of using Command Prompt for my little
Ruby programs, and I was wondering what can get me started? I know that
I can use Tk, but that isn’t very well documented in the Pickaxe.
Thanks!–
Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/
No one has mentioned Gtk, which I’m now using with Ruby with great
success. I have not tried it on Windows (or the Mac), but I believe
it works on both. Gtk is widely used in C and very stable. I
have used about every GUI you can think over the years. I loved
FXRuby. I wrote an editor in it for myself until one day I upgraded
my system (via Gentoo) and all programs stopped working. Trying to
fix it proved so much work, I gave up on it!
So far that has not happened with Gtk.
Take a look at Gtk at:
http://ruby-gnome2.sourceforge.jp/hiki.cgi?Ruby%2FGTK
Bill
On 3/12/07, WoodHacker [email protected] wrote:
I loved FXRuby. I wrote an editor in it for myself until one day I upgraded
my system (via Gentoo) and all programs stopped working. Trying to
fix it proved so much work, I gave up on it!
Just curious, what exactly about the upgrade caused everything to
break? Was this as a result of the API changes between FXRuby versions
1.0 and 1.2, or was it something else?
On 3/11/07, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:
protect might be taken away from the community one day.
BSD license doesn’t ensure that we will always have source code
I definitely prefer the BSD license. It would be better to have access
to a binary with no source than neither (to compare worst-case
scenarios).Of course, I find both annoyingly limited in applicability to a single
form of copyrightable work, and the BSD license’s applicability to
derivative works is ambiguous. I still prefer the BSD license over the
GPL, especially considering recent examples of the FSF threatening legal
action against small community Linux distributions for debatable
violations of GPL terms.
I have heard of that and I was quite alarmed about it. I do not
however think that one should forget the importance of GPL and it’s
inventor on the paradigm change in society.
Your points are very valid and understandable, but maybe the defensive
aggressive attitude of the FSF is nothing more than somebody wanting
the rights they are fighting for respected.
It is however vital to know how far they go for everybody before they
chose their licence and it is a good thing to talk about it often.
Cheers
Robert
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 06:45:03AM +0900, Robert D. wrote:
however think that one should forget the importance of GPL and it’s
inventor on the paradigm change in society.
Of course – historical context is important to understanding any trends
and current circumstances, and that context can have a continuing effect
on future developments.
Your points are very valid and understandable, but maybe the defensive
aggressive attitude of the FSF is nothing more than somebody wanting
the rights they are fighting for respected.
I don’t consider forced distribution models that ultimately prevent easy
distribution for the least organizationally powerful to qualify as a
“right”.
It is however vital to know how far they go for everybody before they
chose their licence and it is a good thing to talk about it often.
Agreed.
On 3/11/07, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:
I’m a cynic, according to my own definition: an optimist that has
learned from life experience. I am concerned with the notion that the
BSD license doesn’t ensure that we will always have source code
available to us when we get the binary.
Yes, that is a concern.
On the other hand, I am more
concerned that the forced distribution of source code mandated by the
GPL is actually more restrictive in practice. For one thing, it
prevents anyone that didn’t have the foresight to get the source at the
same time as the binaries from redistributing the binaries in his or her
possession, unless he or she can still find the source.
The more I think about this though, I’m not sure I want someone’s
binaries without the source. The thrust of the FSF and for that
matter the open source movement is open source, not gratis
distribution of binary software. Having the source available with the
binaries also provides for at least a minimal audit trail to the
licensing terms of those binaries. If you just download the binaries,
and you can’t tie them to source, how to you as a user show that you
have a license to the software?
The real selling proposition of open-source is that it provides better
protection to the person or organization using the software that it
will continue to be available and maintainable. If only the binaries
are available, due either to neglect by or the future absense of the
distributor, this advantage is lost. Witness the recent suggestions
for a ‘living will’ for the owner of an open source project, it’s
motivated by the same idea which is to keep the project alive past the
disinterest or the demise of the originators.
For another, it
requires, in many cases, for those with limited resources to choose
between maintaining an archive of source code with redundant backups for
several years after distributing binaries, or simply not distributing.
Or distributing through a larger entity such as, say, rubyforge or
sourceforge.
I definitely prefer the BSD license. It would be better to have access
to a binary with no source than neither (to compare worst-case
scenarios).
Well, you can get lots of that kind of software from organizations
like Microsoft.
Of course, I find both annoyingly limited in applicability to a single
form of copyrightable work, and the BSD license’s applicability to
derivative works is ambiguous. I still prefer the BSD license over the
GPL, especially considering recent examples of the FSF threatening legal
action against small community Linux distributions for debatable
violations of GPL terms.
Or one could view it as a wake-up call that keeping open-source open
requires distributing open source.
Of course that’s just my opinion.
–
Rick DeNatale
My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
I don’t want to start a war or big debate, but the FSF threatening
legal action against little guys is not good, they should be going
after bigger fish to pursue their goals. But the idea of forcing
everyone else to make free software is a bit extreme. GPL3 is a bit
wacked. I respect their place in history, but even reading the FSF
coding guidelines sounds like Stallman speaking rather than rational
writing. Perhaps his ego has gotten the best of him.
On 3/13/07, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 07:31:23AM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:
On 3/11/07, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:
Gentlemen
this is probably a really tough test for our tolerance.
I think that the problem of the FSF is that they needed lawyers and if
you are an anarchist like Chad seems to be and I am to some extent
than you are in big troubles.
The law Chad, is of course a gun on our head, but it is also a gun on
the head of e.g. Microsoft.
Microsoft would have destroyed the market already were it not for some
laws, I think we can agree on this, right?
But I think that the idealistic POV of Rick is a very important one too.
This is a mess and a mess which troubles me a lot.
But Freedom just does not come for free. 
Cheers
Robert
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 07:31:23AM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:
binaries without the source. The thrust of the FSF and for that
matter the open source movement is open source, not gratis
distribution of binary software. Having the source available with the
binaries also provides for at least a minimal audit trail to the
licensing terms of those binaries. If you just download the binaries,
and you can’t tie them to source, how to you as a user show that you
have a license to the software?
How do you feel about people having a (legally protected) right to
distribute Linux LiveCDs without having to push several CDs full of
source code on the recipients at the same time?
There’s a difference between downloading software with the source
available, then later finding that the source for that exact version of
the binary went away, and downloading software when no source is
available. I don’t believe that conflating the two situations helps
clear up the legal ramifications of the situation at all.
The real selling proposition of open-source is that it provides better
protection to the person or organization using the software that it
will continue to be available and maintainable. If only the binaries
are available, due either to neglect by or the future absense of the
distributor, this advantage is lost. Witness the recent suggestions
for a ‘living will’ for the owner of an open source project, it’s
motivated by the same idea which is to keep the project alive past the
disinterest or the demise of the originators.
In practice, the source of BSD-licensed software is as easily available
as the source of GPLed software, generally speaking. If the source
disappears, however, you now can’t do anything with the binary at all,
except continue to use it – and, at that point, you have to ensure you
don’t accidentally “distribute” it sans source. That’s my point.
For another, it
requires, in many cases, for those with limited resources to choose
between maintaining an archive of source code with redundant backups for
several years after distributing binaries, or simply not distributing.Or distributing through a larger entity such as, say, rubyforge or
sourceforge.
True – but if that’s the option you choose, you have to stick to it,
and you then entrust some of your data security to someone else.
Sometimes that’s an option. Sometimes it’s not – such as when running
package archives for a small community Linux distribution, or even just
for your friends.
I definitely prefer the BSD license. It would be better to have access
to a binary with no source than neither (to compare worst-case
scenarios).Well, you can get lots of that kind of software from organizations
like Microsoft.
Notice, I don’t like worst-case scenario conditions. As such, I happily
use the FreeBSD archives. See how well that works?
Of course, I find both annoyingly limited in applicability to a single
form of copyrightable work, and the BSD license’s applicability to
derivative works is ambiguous. I still prefer the BSD license over the
GPL, especially considering recent examples of the FSF threatening legal
action against small community Linux distributions for debatable
violations of GPL terms.Or one could view it as a wake-up call that keeping open-source open
requires distributing open source.
A social revolution loses some ethical purity when enforced at the point
of a gun – and that’s what the law is: a gun to one’s head.