[HN Gopher] An archeaological dive through a software copyright ...
___________________________________________________________________
An archeaological dive through a software copyright concern
Author : xena
Score : 19 points
Date : 2022-08-22 11:14 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (iliana.fyi)
(TXT) w3m dump (iliana.fyi)
| samatman wrote:
| I don't agree with that interpretation of the MIT license. I'm
| aware that it's popular, perhaps majority, but I think it
| wouldn't hold up in court, though I hope we never find out, it
| would be a churlish point to sue over imho.
|
| The clause (the "Software") is defined, and when we unroll the
| relevant line using that definition we get this:
|
| > _The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
| included in all copies or substantial portions of this software
| and associated documentation files_
|
| First note: it says _this_ software, and source code is routinely
| distributed without the binary. It also says "and associated
| documentation files", and here we have a dog which doesn't bark:
| the clear opportunity to say "as well as compiled artifacts and
| object" was not taken, leading a reasonable person to be able to
| conclude this omission was intentional.
|
| I happen to think the point was to include copyright notice on
| source and documentation, but not on binaries, which is awkward
| to do. If you want to be safe, ok, sure, find a way, and IANAL.
| btdmaster wrote:
| Is the binary no longer the software? All precedent would
| suggest otherwise. (Though I can see it may not be a copy of
| the software, as compilation is usually more than that.)
| jacobsievers wrote:
| I find it difficult to invest time in reading this when the
| author demonstrates such a basic misunderstanding of copyright:
|
| >...software, by default, probably cannot be used, modified, or
| redistributed without a license from the copyright holder.
|
| Of course it can be used and modified. It's the redistribution
| that is covered by copyright law.
|
| >...you can't really use software without someone giving you
| permission.
|
| This is completely false, except where a license is required to
| obtain a copy to begin with. It is the license that creates the
| restriction, not the copyright.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| MAI Systems v. Peak Computer[0] says otherwise, at least in the
| 9th Circuit and at least covering use of the program. Other
| courts and Congress have bent over backwards to try and not
| disturb the ruling.
|
| Even if it was overturned, modification has been a core part of
| copyright law since Folsom v. Marsh[1], where the Supreme Court
| interpreted the entire concept of derivative rights into the
| law. In fact, this ruling was so expansive they had to invent
| fair use at the same time just to avoid accidentally
| overturning the 1st Amendment.
|
| Copyright creates the restriction, specifically to legally
| mandate a negotiation for the license that absolves you of the
| restriction. If you do not have a license, you have nothing but
| a pending lawsuit.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Com
| p....
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folsom_v._Marsh
| jacobsievers wrote:
| This case establishes that the copy in question was in fact a
| "copy" as defined by the copyright act, but the infringement
| was due to the disposition of the parties' rights via a
| license - not inherent to the copyright. This ruling is
| highly specific to the case.
| EdTsft wrote:
| I have a hard time believing this, are you suggesting that it
| is perfectly legal to run pirated software so long as you never
| entered a license agreement with the creator? Or that the
| existence of a license you've never interacted with and
| potentially have no knowledge of has an impact on the legality
| of you running pirated software? What if a company's internal
| software is leaked, surely they have the right to prevent other
| companies from using it?
| jacobsievers wrote:
| I am not. Of course it's not legal to use pirated software.
| By definition pirated software is illegally obtained. But a
| legally obtained copy can be run without a license, if none
| was required to obtain the software.
|
| As for "leaked" software: again, if copies are illegally
| obtained then of course it's illegal to use them.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| > Of course it can be used and modified. It's the
| redistribution that is covered by copyright law.
|
| By what law or principle? IIRC most software is licensed and
| not sold. And the copyright dictates who defines the terms of
| the license for software which can be copied. Otherwise how
| would 'freeware' and trial software be practical if folks could
| just modify them to bypass any limiters therein?
| jacobsievers wrote:
| The same law or principle that allows me to use the pages of
| a book as wallpaper. Why can't I use my legally obtained copy
| in anyway I choose so long as it doesn't violate any law or
| contract? My point is that copyright only protects from the
| making of copies, and licenses are something else entirely.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| > The same law or principle that allows me to use the pages
| of a book as wallpaper.
|
| First-sale doctrine?
|
| Which, ironically, doesn't apply in this case since the
| software wasn't legally distributed.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| I disagree somewhat with the anti-license manifesto mentioned in
| the tangents. The one here:
| https://www.boringcactus.com/2021/09/29/anti-license-manifes...
|
| Problem is, if you do not license your software, then under
| existing 9th Circuit precedent it is illegal to use your software
| - for any purpose. You are creating a trap to be sprung on people
| who don't understand the law.
|
| Is the US legal system anti-justice, at least in the sense that
| the adversarial model of courts breaks down when applied to power
| disparities[0]? Absolutely.
|
| Is worrying about copyright at best a detour, in the sense that
| copyright has nothing to do with justice except to protect a
| certain few from a specific kind of exploitation? Yes.
|
| But we still need to at least pay lip service to it, if only to
| protect _your users_ from being sued by you. "You", in this
| case, is maximally extended to not only every "you" that might
| exist in the future, but even people who may wind up inheriting
| your estate in the far future - which isn't far enough to cover
| the expiration of the copyright. You - as in, not you, but You -
| can stomp in at any time and sue _individual users_ for large
| sums of money they can 't pay, even if they merely ran the
| program.
|
| This isn't a hypothetical. The way that people share (freely-
| licensed and otherwise) software puts a target on them, and the
| system occasionally takes the shot[1]. For as long as copyright
| applies to the air we breathe, we have to worry about it.
|
| [0] Copyright trolling is a good example of why adversarial court
| systems don't work when parties are not on a level playing field
|
| [1] https://torrentfreak.com/comcast-subscriber-receives-dmca-
| no...
|
| https://torrentfreak.com/paramount-wipes-infringing-ubuntu-t...
| UncleEntity wrote:
| > ...the risk-reward ratio of theoretical copyright litigation is
| not good, especially when litigating against open source projects
| tends to paint a target on your back.
|
| And the example they give (without the link being preserved) is a
| patent case which is completely different.
|
| 75 years from now the heirs of the developer who wrote the
| library being discussed can go on a copyright lawsuit spree and
| there's no amount "FLOSS community pressure" which could stop
| them.
|
| People keep giving advice on this issue of "it probably doesn't
| matter, they put it on GitHub because they want people to use the
| code" which might be true today but it also might matter a whole
| lot tomorrow for whatever reason.
|
| Bad, bad advice...
| jpollock wrote:
| "Does any of this actually matter?"
|
| Yes. If we want others to respect open source licenses, we need
| to honor them ourselves. We can't assume that source-available is
| "available for all uses".
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-22 23:02 UTC)