R
raylopez99
Be afraid, if you code for money, with this recent ruling on Artistic
Licenses.
I'm not an authority in this area, but it seems to me that now if you
read somebody else's code and copy it, and that code has a 'artistic
license' in it (whether or not you agree to it or even read it), your
commercial code has to be released to the public domain (see point a)
below). Or, you have to 'rework' the code so it's not the same as
before. Actually this last option--option "c)" below--the 'reworking'
of the code--is less harsh than I thought--it's not a clean room
rework (in that you have to show that you've never seen the code
before), just a rework after the fact. So make sure to always rework
any code with an artistic license in it, so that only the ideas
therein are used and not the form / format of the ideas. Interesting
in that the Artistic License option "c)" requires you to write a man
page (!) to justify your reworking of the code--who has time for that?
I guess, since no time period is stated, you can write the man page
when you get sued by the copyright owner?!
See yesterday's court decision in the USA on artistic licenses
(follows the Wiki entry below).
RL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_License
You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package in any way,
provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file
stating how and when you changed that file, and provided that you do
at least ONE of the following:
a) place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise make
them Freely Available, such as by posting said modifications to Usenet
or an equivalent medium, or placing the modifications on a major
archive site such as uunet.uu.net, or by allowing the Copyright Holder
to include your modifications in the Standard Version of the Package.
b) use the modified Package only within your corporation or
organization.
c) rename any non-standard executables so the names do not conflict
with standard executables, which must also be provided, and provide a
separate manual page for each non-standard executable that clearly
documents how it differs from the Standard Version.
d) make other distribution arrangements with the Copyright Holder.
-
Open-source pact subject to copyrights law - court
NEW YORK, Aug 14, 2008 (Reuters) - A U.S. federal appeals court has
ruled that the holder of a copyright to a computer programming code
made available for free public download can enforce an "open-source"
copyright license to control future use of the work.
The ruling on Wednesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is seen as having important ramifications for the licensing of
open-source software. Open-source proponents had argued that
individuals who do not adhere to the conditions of an open-source
license should be subject to copyright infringement claims.
The appeals court reversed a lower court ruling that had denied a
preliminary injunction to plaintiff Robert Jacobsen, a hobbyist who
made software used for model trains available through free downloads.
Jacobsen had brought copyright infringement claims against developers
of commercial software products, contending they did not follow terms
of the software's license. The lower court had ruled that copyright
claims did not apply, but that Jacobsen could pursue breach of
contract claims.
The distinction is important because the potential remedies under
federal copyright law are much stronger than under contract law, said
Jacobsen's lawyer, Victoria Hall. She called the appeals court
decision "a fantastic ruling."
It "shows that open-source groups can protect their code under
copyright laws, and this is a ruling that other open-source groups can
use," she said on Thursday.
An attorney representing defendants Matthew Katzer and Katzer's
company was not available to comment.
Open-source software makers share the source code of their computer
programs, allowing users to help change or improve their software and
redistribute it. It is a collaborative approach to software
development, unlike the proprietary approach by companies like
Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), which
generally keep software code secret.
Jacobsen had accused Katzer of copying materials from Jacobsen's
website and incorporating them into a software package without
following the terms of an open-source agreement called the Artistic
License
The lower court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, had interpreted the Artistic License to permit a user to
"modify the material in any way." But the appeals court said
conditions in the Artistic License were vital to enable the copyright
holder to retain the ability to benefit from the work of subsequent
users.
The appeals court sent the case back to the district court for further
proceedings to review Jacobsen's request for a preliminary injunction
again. (Reporting by Martha Graybow)
Licenses.
I'm not an authority in this area, but it seems to me that now if you
read somebody else's code and copy it, and that code has a 'artistic
license' in it (whether or not you agree to it or even read it), your
commercial code has to be released to the public domain (see point a)
below). Or, you have to 'rework' the code so it's not the same as
before. Actually this last option--option "c)" below--the 'reworking'
of the code--is less harsh than I thought--it's not a clean room
rework (in that you have to show that you've never seen the code
before), just a rework after the fact. So make sure to always rework
any code with an artistic license in it, so that only the ideas
therein are used and not the form / format of the ideas. Interesting
in that the Artistic License option "c)" requires you to write a man
page (!) to justify your reworking of the code--who has time for that?
I guess, since no time period is stated, you can write the man page
when you get sued by the copyright owner?!
See yesterday's court decision in the USA on artistic licenses
(follows the Wiki entry below).
RL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_License
You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package in any way,
provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file
stating how and when you changed that file, and provided that you do
at least ONE of the following:
a) place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise make
them Freely Available, such as by posting said modifications to Usenet
or an equivalent medium, or placing the modifications on a major
archive site such as uunet.uu.net, or by allowing the Copyright Holder
to include your modifications in the Standard Version of the Package.
b) use the modified Package only within your corporation or
organization.
c) rename any non-standard executables so the names do not conflict
with standard executables, which must also be provided, and provide a
separate manual page for each non-standard executable that clearly
documents how it differs from the Standard Version.
d) make other distribution arrangements with the Copyright Holder.
-
Open-source pact subject to copyrights law - court
NEW YORK, Aug 14, 2008 (Reuters) - A U.S. federal appeals court has
ruled that the holder of a copyright to a computer programming code
made available for free public download can enforce an "open-source"
copyright license to control future use of the work.
The ruling on Wednesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is seen as having important ramifications for the licensing of
open-source software. Open-source proponents had argued that
individuals who do not adhere to the conditions of an open-source
license should be subject to copyright infringement claims.
The appeals court reversed a lower court ruling that had denied a
preliminary injunction to plaintiff Robert Jacobsen, a hobbyist who
made software used for model trains available through free downloads.
Jacobsen had brought copyright infringement claims against developers
of commercial software products, contending they did not follow terms
of the software's license. The lower court had ruled that copyright
claims did not apply, but that Jacobsen could pursue breach of
contract claims.
The distinction is important because the potential remedies under
federal copyright law are much stronger than under contract law, said
Jacobsen's lawyer, Victoria Hall. She called the appeals court
decision "a fantastic ruling."
It "shows that open-source groups can protect their code under
copyright laws, and this is a ruling that other open-source groups can
use," she said on Thursday.
An attorney representing defendants Matthew Katzer and Katzer's
company was not available to comment.
Open-source software makers share the source code of their computer
programs, allowing users to help change or improve their software and
redistribute it. It is a collaborative approach to software
development, unlike the proprietary approach by companies like
Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), which
generally keep software code secret.
Jacobsen had accused Katzer of copying materials from Jacobsen's
website and incorporating them into a software package without
following the terms of an open-source agreement called the Artistic
License
The lower court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, had interpreted the Artistic License to permit a user to
"modify the material in any way." But the appeals court said
conditions in the Artistic License were vital to enable the copyright
holder to retain the ability to benefit from the work of subsequent
users.
The appeals court sent the case back to the district court for further
proceedings to review Jacobsen's request for a preliminary injunction
again. (Reporting by Martha Graybow)