Python license (2.3)

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 2005-04-14, Robert Kern schreef <rkern at ucsd.edu>:
> Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> Op 2005-04-14, Robert Kern schreef <rkern at ucsd.edu>:
>> 
>>>Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>>
>>>>Op 2005-04-13, Robert Kern schreef <rkern at ucsd.edu>:
>>>>
>>>>I would do that if I were just writing code I thought others could
>>>>find usefull. I then would feel no problem "burdening" those users
>>>>with the same kind of license I found in the product I took some
>>>>code from. But I also think that readers of documentation should
>>>>be free to use any code included in any way they see fit.
>>>
>>>If they have issues with distributing code derived from Python, why are 
>>>they reading a Python tutorial?
>> 
>> 
>> Try and look it from a students viewpoint. He is learing languages,
>> algorithms and so on. Now he is ready to write his own program.
>> Chances are high that he will rely on examples from the
>> courses/documentation he read. It is just not practical for someone
>> like that to figure out all the possible different licenses under
>> which he can use the examples from the various documenation sources.
>
> The PSF License is about as light as they come.
>
>> Now if this documentation refers to code from yet another source
>> with its own license, using it becomes an utter nightmare for
>> the student, because now he has to figure out which piece of
>> the code is original from the author of the documentation and
>> which was copied from the other source.
>
> Then write your own code and don't use anyone else's. You can't offer 
> extra permissions for code that's not yours.

Well then I'll just have to do that.

>> Consideration like this, let me come to the conclusion that
>> code included with documentation should come with no strings
>> attached for the students to reuse.
>
> No such thing, really. Copyright law requires almost as much as the PSF 
> license. The MIT license is shorter, possibly more easily 
> understandable, but practically amounts to more-or-less the same thing.

If I read a tutorial or a course on algorithms both with examples.
Does copyright law require that I attribute if I reuse code
from these examples? Even if it was pseudo code that I had
to translate in an actual language.

Suppose some time has passed and I have to write similar code.
I cant find the documentation but this time I'm experienced
enough so that I can recreate the code. Do I still need to
attribute the code?

What if the code is so short that basically everyone that
solves the problem writes the same kind of code?

> In short, don't worry about it. Don't sue people, keep the attributions 
> intact, and probably no one will care.

If they don't care, why did they attach such a license in the first
place.

-- 
Antoon Pardon