Re-using copyrighted code

[Rick Johnson]

On Sunday, June 9, 2013 4:08:54 PM UTC-5, zipher wrote:
> >> 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).
> 
> >
> 
> > No, the original author retains all rights except those explicitly
> 
> > granted. The same way that obtaining the "source" to a song does not
> 
> > give you the right to redistribute the song all you want.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are right only by the *word* of the law, but you have not
> 
> included the authors *actions*.  A court has to include both.
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly did not *retain* his rights when he *published* his
> 
> code.  There is not word of law that is necessary when his actions
> 
> have already done the deed (unless under coercion, of course).
> 
> 
> 
> > Fair use has nothing to do with money. It depends on how the work is
> 
> > used and how you've changed it. Weird Al's song parodies are fair use,
> 
> > even though he sells them.
> 
> 
> 
> That can't really be claimed without a case being brought against him.
> 
>  Michael Jackson, for example, probably could have made a case against
> 
> WierdAl, but did not -- that does not automatically mean that
> 
> WierdAl's use was fair-use in the slightest.  In fact, it probably was
> 
> not, but MJ made enough money that he probably also didn't want to the
> 
> PR loss.
> 
> 
> 
> > You distributing copies of a commercial
> 
> > software to everyone is not fair use, even though you aren't making
> 
> > money.
> 
> 
> 
> It *is* absolutely fair use, if that commercial software *published*
> 
> their code (in the definition I gave earlier).  If you stole the code
> 
> off their protected servers, it is not fair use.
> 
> 
> 
> >> 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.
> 
> >
> 
> > Again, no. The GPL does not restrict your rights when running on
> 
> > machines you control, but that's just because of the terms of the
> 
> > license. Most commercial licenses include terms like "no reverse
> 
> > engineering the software" that have nothing to do with distribution.
> 
> 
> 
> Close-source software could automatically be considered "protected",
> 
> but that is only out of kindness.  Publishing software, even
> 
> closed-source software opens a company to some level
> 
> reverse-engineering by the nature of computers and by the fact that
> 
> the techniques of turning machine code into assembly are well known.
> 
> So they explicitly state that they do not give permission to do so,
> 
> yet this is not worth much of anything except for the fact that most
> 
> people are intimidated to go against a large software company to argue
> 
> their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently these companies have already seen this loophole and have
> 
> made things like DRM to put a legalistic container around what would
> 
> otherwise be de facto published (machine) code.  But this is not a
> 
> legit workaround either and companies have essentially stealing from
> 
> the intellectual and creative communities.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no legitimate argument against a personal user figuring out
> 
> how software works for personal use.  If they don't want people to
> 
> "figure it out", they'll have to open stores where people can run
> 
> their special software on machines that are under their control.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, this is just the way it is -- everyone's just gone along
> 
> with the program tacitly because they get intimidated by the legal
> 
> system.  But the law is for people, not for lawyers.

Preach on my brother, Preach on! It's amazing how much control you can leverage on the populace of lemmings from a few well placed tv ads and some OP-ED propaganda.