On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>> At least partially, my confusion seems to be caused by the dichotomy of
>>> the concepts of copyright and license. How do these relate to each other?
>>
>> A license emerges out of the commercial domain is purely about
>> commercial protecti
>> At least partially, my confusion seems to be caused by the dichotomy of
>> the concepts of copyright and license. How do these relate to each other?
>
> A license emerges out of the commercial domain is purely about
> commercial protections.
I should clarify, that "commercial protections" here
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:42:07 +0200, Malte Forkel wrote:
> Am 10.06.2013 07:31, schrieb Steven D'Aprano:
>>
>> But bringing it back to the original topic, I believe that the
>> philosophy of FOSS is that we should try our best to honour the
>> intentions of the writer, not to find some legal looph
On Monday, June 10, 2013 12:40:57 PM UTC-7, zipher wrote:
> > Weird Al can be a complex case, because sometimes his songs are true
> > parodies, and sometimes they're more satires. Parody has a pretty firm
> > history of being protected under fair use, and Weird Al's MJ-inspired songs
> > ("Fat
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> Weird Al can be a complex case, because sometimes his songs are true
>> parodies, and sometimes they're more satires. Parody has a pretty firm
>> history of being protected under fair use, and Weird Al's MJ-inspired songs
>> ("Fat" and "E
> Weird Al can be a complex case, because sometimes his songs are true
> parodies, and sometimes they're more satires. Parody has a pretty firm
> history of being protected under fair use, and Weird Al's MJ-inspired songs
> ("Fat" and "Eat It") are clearly parodies. (As is his more recent Lady
On 10 June 2013 17:29, llanitedave wrote:
> However, I have yet to see an example of source code that qualifies as either
> parody or satire under any standard.
You should try reading Perl.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sunday, June 9, 2013 2:08:54 PM UTC-7, zipher wrote:
>
>
> > 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 ca
On 06/10/2013 05:57 AM, Robert Kern wrote:
On 2013-06-08 22:31, Malte Forkel wrote:
Hello,
I have written a small utility to locate errors in regular expressions
that I want to upload to PyPI. Before I do that, I would like to learn
a litte more about the legal aspects of open-source software.
On 2013-06-08 22:31, Malte Forkel wrote:
Hello,
I have written a small utility to locate errors in regular expressions
that I want to upload to PyPI. Before I do that, I would like to learn
a litte more about the legal aspects of open-source software. What would
be a good introductory reading?
>>> Can you provide any citations for your interpretation? Besides "that's
>>> what the law should be", I mean.
>>
>> I don't think I even have to: the legal code you're citing above is
>> not very clear, consistent, or well-defined at all. As such, it shows
>> that this area remains an area that
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Malte Forkel wrote:
> Had I known in the beginning how convoluted things would become, I might
> have considered two other options: Just publish or keep the code to
> myself. But I still think, first understanding the legal aspects and
> then publishing (to give b
Am 10.06.2013 07:31, schrieb Steven D'Aprano:
>
> But bringing it back to the original topic, I believe that the philosophy
> of FOSS is that we should try our best to honour the intentions of the
> writer, not to find some legal loophole that permits us to copy his or
> her work against their
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 14:08:54 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
> 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.
Your definition of "just the way it is" does not agree with mine. You're
describing how you
On Sunday, June 9, 2013 7:26:43 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> When you listen to a song on the radio, do you know how they have a
> copyright announcer read out the copyright and explicitly list all the
> rights they keep after each and every song and advertisment?
> No, me neither. It does
> Granted, IANAL, but the scholarly article I linked to above refers to
> several of the same issues. I don't know about publication revoking
> *all rights*, but there was definitely an understanding by the court
> that publication meant a reduction of copyright claim.
Again, I don't think I said
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:07:57 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Mark Janssen
>> wrote:
>>> That's not entirely correct. If he *publishes* his code (I'm using
>>> this term "publish" technically to mean "pu
On 06/09/2013 08:30 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> Can you provide any citations for your interpretation? Besides "that's
>> what the law should be", I mean.
>
> I don't think I even have to: the legal code you're citing above is
> not very clear, consistent, or well-defined at all. As such, it show
> What is clear is the mandate that sets up the framework in the first
> place:
>
> "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing
> for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to
> their respective Writings and Discoveries"
> -- USC Articl
On 2013-06-09 19:30, Mark Janssen wrote:
> Thanks for digging out the legal code. Upon reading, it is
> stunningly clear that the legal system has not established a solid
> framework or arching philosophy in which to contain and express the
> desire (in law) to protect content creators of all kind
> The fact that a work is non commercial is one of several factors that
> is taken into account when determining fair use. It is not an
> automatic fair use for non-commercial works. I have no idea where your
> understanding of copyright law came from, but here is the relevant
> section of the US l
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> Mark, ever watched TV? Or gone to the movies? Or walked into a bookshop?
>> Listened to the radio? All these things publish copyrighted work. It is
>> utter nonsense that merely publishing something in public gives up the
>> monopoly privilege
> Mark, ever watched TV? Or gone to the movies? Or walked into a bookshop?
> Listened to the radio? All these things publish copyrighted work. It is
> utter nonsense that merely publishing something in public gives up the
> monopoly privileges granted by copyright.
That's not correct. Keep in min
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
On 06/09/2013 02:32 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
> PyPi. But if you are *publishing*, there's no court which can
> protect your IP afterwards from redistribution, unless you
> explicitly *restrict* it.
I am not a lawyer, and I haven't read the copyright act in its entirety,
nor have I studied all the
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:07:57 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Mark Janssen
> 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
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 13:32:00 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Michael Torrie
> 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
> (Digression follows.) ...(by Gilbert and
> Sullivan - one of my other loves), and according to US law at the
> time, the publication (in this case, public performance, along with
> the public sale of libretti (books of the words) and some sheet music)
> of the work voided the authors' claim to ow
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Mark Janssen 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'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 *a
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Michael Torrie 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 grante
On 9 Jun 2013 21:39, "Mark Janssen" wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Michael Torrie 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
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Michael Torrie 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
On 06/09/2013 11:18 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> I understand that I have to pick a license for my package.
>
> 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 th
> At least partially, my confusion seems to be caused by the dichotomy of
> the concepts of copyright and license. How do these relate to each other?
A license emerges out of the commercial domain is purely about
commercial protections. A copyright comes from the "academic" domain
is pure about
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> The Secret Labs license is very explicit: "All rights reserved". That line
>> means you can't touch it under pain of lawsuit.
>
> That's not true. It means whatever rights they do have, they are
> stating, in effect, that they have not give
> The Secret Labs license is very explicit: "All rights reserved". That line
> means you can't touch it under pain of lawsuit.
That's not true. It means whatever rights they do have, they are
stating, in effect, that they have not given them away. But this is a
difficult legal point, because by
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 08:10:13 -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
> The Secret Labs license is very explicit: "All rights reserved". That
> line means you can't touch it under pain of lawsuit.
It's also very explicit that the code can be redistributed.
However, there is no explicit rights to modification
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> On Sunday, June 9, 2013 8:21:43 AM UTC-5, Malte Forkel wrote:
>> I have asked the PSF for help regarding the implications of the license
>> status of code from sre_parse.py and the missing license statement in
>> sre.py. I'll happily report t
On Sunday, June 9, 2013 8:21:43 AM UTC-5, Malte Forkel wrote:
> I have asked the PSF for help regarding the implications of the license
> status of code from sre_parse.py and the missing license statement in
> sre.py. I'll happily report their answer to the list I they don't reply
> in this thread
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Malte Forkel wrote:
> At least partially, my confusion seems to be caused by the dichotomy of
> the concepts of copyright and license. How do these relate to each other?
Ah, that one's easy enough to answer!
When you create something, you own it. That is what cop
On 6/8/13 5:31 PM, Malte Forkel wrote:
Now, how am I supposed to deal with that? Ask Secret Labs for some kind
of permission? Leave it as it is and add my own copyright line?
Secret Labs AB is Frederic Lundh, author of the Python Image Library and
many bits included in Python's stdlib. Here is
I have asked the PSF for help regarding the implications of the license
status of code from sre_parse.py and the missing license statement in
sre.py. I'll happily report their answer to the list I they don't reply
in this thread.
At least partially, my confusion seems to be caused by the dichotom
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 23:31:10 +0200, Malte Forkel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have written a small utility to locate errors in regular expressions
> that I want to upload to PyPI. Before I do that, I would like to learn
> a litte more about the legal aspects of open-source software. What would
> be a g
I can't tell you as a lawyer, but I can tell you that regarding code
for non-commercial use, the only supportable case is requiring
fair-credit assignment. If reading the original license (which you
are obligated to do if you re-use and re-distribute the code), it
stipulates that you must re-share
On 2013.06.08 17:09, Benjamin Kaplan wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Malte Forkel wrote:
>> # This version of the SRE library can be redistributed under CNRI's
>> # Python 1.6 license. For any other use, please contact Secret Labs
>> # AB (i...@pythonware.com).
>> #
>> # Portions of this
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Malte Forkel wrote:
> # This version of the SRE library can be redistributed under CNRI's
> # Python 1.6 license. For any other use, please contact Secret Labs
> # AB (i...@pythonware.com).
I presume that's referring to this:
http://www.handle.net/python_licenses
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Malte Forkel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have written a small utility to locate errors in regular expressions
> that I want to upload to PyPI. Before I do that, I would like to learn
> a litte more about the legal aspects of open-source software. What would
> be a good i
On 2013.06.08 16:31, Malte Forkel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have written a small utility to locate errors in regular expressions
> that I want to upload to PyPI. Before I do that, I would like to learn
> a litte more about the legal aspects of open-source software. What would
> be a good introductory
Hello,
I have written a small utility to locate errors in regular expressions
that I want to upload to PyPI. Before I do that, I would like to learn
a litte more about the legal aspects of open-source software. What would
be a good introductory reading?
Plus, I have one very specific question: I
50 matches
Mail list logo
