Re-using copyrighted code

[Fábio Santos]

On 9 Jun 2013 21:39, "Mark Janssen" <dreamingforward at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Michael Torrie <torriem at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 06/09/2013 11:18 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
> >> You actually do not.  Attaching a legal document is purely a secondary
> >> protection from those who would take away right already granted by US
> >> copyright.
> >
> > You are correct, except that the OP has already stated he wishes to have
> > his code distributed. Without granting a license, the code cannot be
> > distributed beyond the people he personally gives the code too.  PyPi
> > cannot legally allow others to download it without a license.
>
> That's not entirely correct.  If he *publishes* his code (I'm using
> this term "publish" technically to mean "put forth in a way where
> anyone of the general public can or is encouraged to view"), then he
> is *tacitly* giving up protections that secrecy (or *not* disclosing
> it) would *automatically* grant.  The only preserved right is
> authorship after that.   So it can be re-distributed freely, if
> authorship is preserved.  The only issue after that is "fair use" and
> that includes running the program (not merely copying the source).
>
> Re-selling for money violates fair-use, as does redistribution without
> preserving credit assignment (unless they've naively waived those
> rights away).  I will have to take a look at  PyPi.  But if you are
> *publishing*, there's no court which can protect your IP afterwards
> from redistribution, unless you explicitly *restrict* it.  In which
> case, if you restrict terms of re-use, you're putting the court in
> jeopardy because you making two actions opposed to one another.  The
> only thing the court can easily uphold is your authorship and
> non-exploitation from a violation of fair-use (note again the key word
> is "use", nor merely copying the code).  But then if you waive *that*
> right away, you put the court in jeopardy again.
>
> > Here's how the GPL puts it, and of course this applies to any and all
> > licenses, even proprietary ones:
> >
> > "However, nothing else [besides the License] grants you permission to
> > modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions
> > are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
> > modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
> > Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all
> > its terms and conditions for copying..."
>
> Well this is where one must make a distinction with fair-use -- if I
> re-publish my modifications then the code is still subject to the
> terms by the original author.  If I make a copy for myself and run the
> problem for personal, non-commercial use, then I am in the domain of
> fair use and have no other obligations.
>

This sort of complicated stuff is why I love the wtfpl. If it's free
software, it's free to use, distribute and modify, not free under a huge
amount of terms.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20130609/6c4a5ca3/attachment.html>