On 9 Jun 2013 21:39, "Mark Janssen" <dreamingforw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Michael Torrie <torr...@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.
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
