Copyrights of work published on the Forum

[mikeslr]

Wiak @ viewtopic.php?p=1188#p1188 "...this is understood to be an open-source software forum and any app/utility published here (wherever) must be given a legitimate open source license statement or it should not be published here at all. If no license is stated in the program source code then the app/utility thread should contain a statement giving users full permissions to use the software how they like, including all the normal rights to modify, copy, redistribute, fork and so on. If that is not to be the case then a statement should be required to say that so that everyone understands that the software is not open-source licensed".

Kind of busy today. So won't write a long essay. Agree with you . But suggest that rockedge pick one of the several 'open-source' licenses. Then Amend the Rules of the Forum to include a statement that any program published on this Forum is published under that license unless the author(s) of the program explicitly state otherwise in the body of the program. Notice of Amended Forum Rules should be sent to all current members. and there should posts to that effect in the Users Beginners, and Programing Sections. The latter two should be stickies.

Short exposition: Practiced Law for 30 years, never patent and copyright. Foundation concept in almost all Law revolves around the Reasonable Man. How would the reasonable man interpret this contract, statute, constitutional provision (albeit, the latter may be limited to the reasonable man when it was written), act under the circumstances (rights and duties in the absence of a contract).
There is nothing new under the Sun: no new language, no new idea. Only variations of what already exists. Patent and copyright laws exist to encourage innovation by treating plans and designs as property by monetising their infringement. Exactly where do you draw the line between what is commonly available and what is unique? Hand-craft a violin and its your violin (unless you stole the wood ). There is only one violin. Creation of another requires an expenditure of time and effort. Little effort is required to duplicate and transmit a plan or design. The result is that copyright and patent laws evolve into compendium of exceptions to be analyzed by technical experts not understood reasonable men.

Membership in the Forum is a contract. The Forum's Rules provide notice to anyone using the Forum even if that person is not a member. In general, the Law does not recognize as valid the argument "I'm not bound by Rules I didn't know because I didn't read them."

[rockedge]

Soon a finished set of forum rules with open source license will need to be made public. A draft of such would be appreciated. I have little experience with drafting rules for something as dynamic as this forum.

Calling all lawyers (past and present) to share some wisdom and practical experience so we can get this legal obligations reined in.

[user1111]

Perhaps (not a lawyer) add to the existing Terms (clickable link at the bottom)

You are entirely responsible for the content of, and any harm resulting from, any of your postings or submissions to this Site

When you create or make available a Contribution, you represent and warrant that you:

1. own or have sufficient rights to post your Contributions on or through this Site;

2. will not post Contributions that violate our or any other person's privacy rights, publicity rights, intellectual property rights (including without limitation copyrights) or contract rights;

3. have fully complied with any third-party licenses relating to Contributions, agree to pay all royalties, fees and any other monies owing any person by reason of Contributions that you posted to or through this Site.

a.k.a. throws the onus onto the poster not the site.

[MochiMoppel]

a.k.a. throws the onus onto the poster not the site.

.Scary
"You are entirely responsible for ... any harm resulting from, any of your postings or submission". I'm not a lawyer either but isn't this what art.15 of GPL ("Disclaimer of Warranty") wants posters protect from? Even without a GPL I always assumed that people who use my code (snippets) do this at their own risk.
Don't turn the forum into a mine field

BTW: Shouldn't this tread better go into the "Forum Organization & Structure Council" forum?

[wiak]

Even without a GPL I always assumed that people who use my code (snippets) do this at their own risk.

@MochiMoppel

Is mmview just a 'code snippet'? I thought it was a working script/utility-program. And what about pxruler? Is that a code snippet or have you published it as a useful working tool? If not simply code snippets, what then is their license or terms and conditions under which they can be used? I am aware that they are not provided as GPL (though I expect many here do not know that). I am sure people don't just want to simply stare at your code simply to admire how good or otherwise it is.

Of course no one can force you to say how and where or when your programs can be used, but it is surely only fair that you at least let the community know whether they can use your 'contributions' or not, including any terms and conditions you set for that use. It is your code, at least any parts that are sufficiently original, so there is no denying within the limits of that originality that it is your right to restrict its use if you wish, but please let the community know your conditions for use (whether you are willing to use an open-source license or not) so that they can make informed choice (rather than allowing them to falsely assume an open-source license when that is not the case). You know very well that as things stand your 'contribution' despite being viewable (since in script form) is proprietary, which is going to surprise a lot of people, who are thus mislead by your not saying so.

I'm sure many think highly of your code, but no-one is forcing you to publish it without stating whatever restrictions you may have on its use. Come on, don't keep it secret... just say what the restrictions are, or if there are no restrictions just say so, or stick an open-source license on it/them (or some kind of proprietary or restricted one) - doesn't take a second to do so.

I'm sure some people will continue to enjoy using your work either way. After all lots of us use the likes of MasterPdfEditor or WPS office package - these are not opensource but we find them useful, but at least we most all know the restrictions of use... they do not hide that from us.

The reason why these posts are occurring in this Programming area is caused by yourself, of course, since you are publishing your software in this section (rather than in Additional Software) but not saying who or how it can be used (no license or stated restrictions - but it is certainly wrong to assume no statement 'means' no restrictions as you well know. Perhaps you should publish your unlicensed software under Forum Structure area if that is where you prefer its use/status to be discussed???

[user1111]

a.k.a. throws the onus onto the poster not the site.

.Scary
"You are entirely responsible for ... any harm resulting from, any of your postings or submission". I'm not a lawyer either but isn't this what art.15 of GPL ("Disclaimer of Warranty") wants posters protect from? Even without a GPL I always assumed that people who use my code (snippets) do this at their own risk.

Copyright are implicit, at least under UK law. Adding a copyright notice to a piece of work is just highlighting that, often with the intent/suggestion that you are more inclined to enforce that right. When not included, its more a suggestion that you're not bothered and unlikely to pursue breaches, however the copyright law is still present by default. Copyrights are a minefield. This is OpenBSD's approach https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html

It's a onerous task for a board to monitor/align to that, such that throwing the responsibility to being upon posters is the appropriate choice IMO. Most posters here would be the 'use it as you like' type, no intent to progress Copyright actions. If a action was progressed then the site could pass that to the poster and/or remove the offending article/item.

I guess to protect posters who post with no copyright or terms of use specifically stated that the boards Terms might also include a paragraph to that effect. Perhaps something like

Where a posting or submission includes no copyright or other conditions specifically being declared it is assumed that the default intent was honourable and that the poster of the posting/submission will not be held liable for any losses arising out of usage of any part or all of the posting/submission. In other words, posters to this board generally do so with good intent, so if you use any program source code or scripts published by others to this board then the default is assumed to be that you do so entirely at your own risk, excepting if the poster clearly states otherwise.

The board administrators reserve the right to remove any posting at any time. But typically will only tend to do so if the posting is offensive, abusive or has other issues such as breach of copyrights or harmful intent/effect being identified. The site owners will not be held liable for any loss or failure arising out of the removal or failure to remove postings/submissions. The site will not be held liable for any loss or failure arising out of the absence of the site or removal of any site content or the failure to remove content.

[stemsee]

I think what Rufwoof could add to his draft 'terms' might be that any use of code, process sequences, arrangements or new ideas/implementations should be acknowledged , mentioned, attributed to that coder who presents it in this forum. People get the huff when when it happens that someone steals your code without a mention, even if they don't kick up a fuss. But you read someone's script and immediately recognise a line or block of code that took you days to get right! Indeed without monetary reward, what is there other than praise/recognition? I think it is a reasonable and honourable expectation that is established in academia at least. Failure to do so should be resolved by a review process, when a complaint is registered with the site administrators.

[wiak]

But you read someone's script and immediately recognise a line or block of code that took you days to get right! Indeed without monetary reward, what is there other than praise/recognition? I think it is a reasonable and honourable expectation that is established in academia at least.

Indeed. Though there is much that appears in code snippets that originates elsewhere as a quick Googling-type search often reveals. e.g. stackexchange and so on - which is where I personally always head to when I'm looking for a quick up-voted algorithm rather than imagining I can do better in my own first attempt... Depends how large the lump of code is of course and how specialized it is. Generally speaking making/leaving scripts without opensource license declaration (or comment to effect users are free to do what they want with it) is an over-the-top waste of time on a distro-enthusiast's forum such as this since so much is out there with opensource status anyway and copyright claim can only have meaning for parts of code that are not common knowledge already out there in coded algorithms more generally. They are certainly not going to make money... But still some coders are possessive enough to try to restrict others (who themselves are fine with sharing their code as an overall opensource shared-learning/development process) - which is particularly galling when no statement accompanies their code to the effect that it is 'contributed' but with 'restrictions' regarding use, modification, redistribution, forking and so on... But, surprising though it may be to others here, some of these coders do have their restrictions, which only surface when you ask them prior to for example including in some redistributable distro (out of common courtesy I always try to ask, but never imagined the code wasn't opensource free to do as one likes with prior to that anway!!!).

I can understand someone not wanting to publish something for potential commercial reasons. But no-one is forced to publish, and the idea of commercially benefiting from 'creations/ideas' discussed/'contributed' here is generally nonsensical anyway. To me such non-licensed works come across as feeling superior arrogance type behaviour and not something to be desired or encouraged on a friendly forum.

[rockedge]

I added the draft piece from rufwoof to the Terms page language. Please review and there should be a board wide announcement that the terms agreement has been modified I am imagining.
ucp.php?mode=terms

[stemsee]

But no-one is forced to publish, and the idea of commercially benefiting from 'creations/ideas' discussed/'contributed' here is generally nonsensical anyway. To me such non-licensed works come across as feeling superior arrogance type behaviour and not something to be desired or encouraged on a friendly forum.

Criticisms accepted but on the other hand the uncontested policy of re-enforcement of social divisions has to been seen for what it is: prejudice, -isms, and cliquishness. Couching your disdain in ´reasonableness´ does not make them 'just' when ignoring wider issues and contexts. Conspiratorial behaviour is illegal, whether online or otherwise. This is why it should be a matter of policy and not seemingly arbitrary practice to decide to thank one and either ignore the other or dismissively include their efforts in a generalisation which reduces their significant contribution to the level of non-performers, in terms such as ´and others on this forum´. When that contribution is provably significant. That's plain evil, and just because it's widespread, popular and unchallenged does not make it ok. A website which does so will be taken down.

[mikewalsh]

Whilst I agree that a blanket, "catch-all", legal disclaimer is a good idea for the forum - others use them, certainly - I'm highly amused by the responses to this.

It's interesting how the wordiest replies are posted by those with only the flimsiest layman's understanding of how it actually works. Those familiar with (and experienced in) the profession know perfectly well that to make your point/beat your opponent/ whatever, there's absolutely no need to bamboozle everybody with a wall of verbiage.

All you need is the facts, presented in such a way that there can be absolutely no shred of doubt in anybody's mind that they are anything other than "the facts".

I'm sure the other Mike can see where I'm coming from.....!

(And anyway; why suddenly thrust all of this into centre spotlight specifically NOW? The community has coped with all this quite well for a decade and a half.....what's the "big deal" with GPL, all of a sudden?)


Mike.

[wiak]

But no-one is forced to publish, and the idea of commercially benefiting from 'creations/ideas' discussed/'contributed' here is generally nonsensical anyway. To me such non-licensed works come across as feeling superior arrogance type behaviour and not something to be desired or encouraged on a friendly forum.

Criticisms accepted but on the other hand the uncontested policy of re-enforcement of social divisions has to been seen for what it is: prejudice, -isms, and cliquishness. Couching your disdain in ´reasonableness´ does not make them 'just' when ignoring wider issues and contexts. Conspiratorial behaviour is illegal, whether online or otherwise. This is why it should be a matter of policy and not seemingly arbitrary practice to decide to thank one and either ignore the other or dismissively include their efforts in a generalisation which reduces their significant contribution to the level of non-performers, in terms such as ´and others on this forum´. When that contribution is provably significant. That's plain evil, and just because it's widespread, popular and unchallenged does not make it ok. A website which does so will be taken down.

Em... My ability at English seems to be letting me down. I'm not sure if this is an agreement or a disagreement with the quote (extraction) of my own comment or if it's about some other post by accident. I'm lost... Doesn't matter.

[wiak]

I added the draft piece from rufwoof to the Terms page language. Please review and there should be a board wide announcement that the terms agreement has been modified I am imagining.
ucp.php?mode=terms

Seems fine to me. I wonder if anyone has every been blamed or had legal action taken against them from their less-than-perfect program or script unfortunately wiping someone's hard drive in a manner the author alas never predicted. Forum disclaimer useful though probably wise to always use a code license that includes every disclaimer imagined since I imagine anything can and does sometimes happen; especially when by some unexpected circumstance an eval statement executes the command rm -rf /

...

[wiak]

(And anyway; why suddenly thrust all of this into centre spotlight specifically NOW? The community has coped with all this quite well for a decade and a half.....what's the "big deal" with GPL, all of a sudden?)

I'll tell you what I think the 'deal' is (it is not what I would call a big deal, but it depends if you value freely available software or not).

I have found that I cannot include some 'contributed' software in distros I produce. It does not matter particularly since I don't care in this case if that software happens to be available for distribution or not. However, I gather the same software can be included in other distros (or at least it is) so I find that situation unacceptable in its divisiveness. My thought is that if that is to be the case then perhaps none of us should release any kind of work with an opensource license - to make our development and download repositories private or by invite only. However, I don't myself want to restrict any of the junk I produce to the few interested users, but would rather others would end their possessive attitude (it is certainly not myself that wants use of their programs or utilities or code snippets for that matter). So I have brought the matter up here on this new forum because the situation has long been the tolerated on the old forum (actually, tolerated is the wrong word, since most users probably innocently imagine all forum-member contributed software is already opensource - it isn't), and nice to have a clean and more inclusive start I feel. But again, that is just my personal opinion and I do not at all speak the opinion of rockedge/official-forum-opinion, and others can silently accept or tolerate what they wish, but I remain happy to draw the matter to the attention of anyone interested and continue, personally, to contemplate what my own reaction will be longer term. There is indeed no reward for any contributions, but the open, sharing, freedom provided by opensource licenses make collaborations work, and worthwhile, (and I do not myself use GPL since I prefer a more liberal license) - but when others enjoy the benefits of opensource code-sharing contributions and expertise, but avoid such freedom of sharing themselves, contributions of proper opensourced code become somewhat less attractive and painful. But, as I say, this is just my own feeling and opinion and I do not care who does or does not share my view on this.

But, yes, it is easy to be casual, and cool, and say "what's the big deal"... yeah, I can do that too

EDIT: about licensed and non-licensed software: https://medium.com/@mntlmaxi/a-quick-lo ... d7c792299d

Even if your goal is to have your work spread far and wide with absolutely no restrictions, you are still better off putting a license that explicitly says so because unlicensed software is still fully under copyright and thus protected. What this means is that, legally, no one can use your work without risking repercussions until the software enters Public Domain which takes years.

wiak

[bigpup]

Would this work?
A simple legal link be placed on the bottom of the forum home page.
It would take you to a statement something like this:

All software or program code, you develop and post in this forum, is released under the rules of GNU General Public License GPL3.

If you do not agree to this.
Any program code or software you develop and post.
It must specifically, also have a posted statement, about what licensing, it is released under.

All posted software or program code is considered, use at your own risk.

Posted software, from 3rd party providers, is governed by their stated licensing.
Should be provided with their software in some type info read file.

[rockedge]

All software or program code, you develop and post in this forum, is released under the rules of GNU General Public License GPL3.

If you do not agree to this.
Any program code or software you develop and post.
It must specifically, also have a posted statement about what licensing it is released under.

I do like this and I feel like I will remove the addition of the legalese in the Terms page and replace it with what is quoted.

[bigpup]

I added a statement about 3rd party software.
See my edited post.

[01micko]

All software or program code, you develop and post in this forum, is released under the rules of GNU General Public License GPL3.

If you do not agree to this.
Any program code or software you develop and post.
It must specifically, also have a posted statement about what licensing it is released under.

I do like this and I feel like I will remove the addition of the legalese in the Terms page and replace it with what is quoted.

I tend to use GPLv2. I have this at the bottom of my site:

Code posted here is licensed under GNU GPL Version 2 or any later version at your discretion.

with a gpl logo and link to https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licens ... .0.en.html

[bigpup]

I suggested GPLv3.
As I understand it.
GPLv2 requirements are all covered in GPLv3.
It clears up some of the wording for better understanding.
Puts it more inline with world requirements, that different countries require, for license to work, in their countries laws.

[Moose On The Loose]

As a non-lawyer:
I suggest "content including code" or something be used in place of "code".
If I compose a poem "How Glorious Puppy Is" and do not state otherwise, others should be free to add verses and share the improved version.

Noticing that as a non-lawyer, I made a shortish comment I am tempted to waffle on at length but I set aside my temptation