Half of GitHub Code Unsafe To Use (If You Want Open Source) 218
WebMink writes "GitHub is a great open source hosting site, right? Wrong. There's no requirement that projects on GitHub provide any copyright license, let alone an open source one, so roughly half the projects on GitHub are "all rights reserved" — meaning you could well be violating copyright if you make any use of the code in them. And GitHub management seem just fine with this state of affairs, saying picking a license is too hard for ordinary developers. But if you're not going to give anyone permission to use your code, why post it on GitHub in the first place?"
Because (Score:5, Interesting)
Because it's a free place to store a git repo as a backup.
Re:Because (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Because (Score:5, Insightful)
A developer who downloads code for use in his project, without checking the licence first, shouldn't be coding in the first place. Seriously...
Re:Because (Score:4, Insightful)
If I understand what you're saying, you're expressing the same ignorance about downloadable material that people downloading warez and mp3s in the 90s had. "It's free, so it's probably legal, right?"
Re: (Score:3)
"It's free so it SHOULD BE legal."
If it's not free for use for non-commercial use, then it shouldn't have been put up there without at least password protection, preferably encrypted as well. Basically, it's "in the cloud", so it's mine to use. Before anyone attempts to use code on github for derivative works or anything, then they really need to check the licensing. But for personal use? Phhhttt - screw the "rights holders"!!!
Re: (Score:3)
And now we're back to a familiar analogy: "The door was open, so anything inside should have been mine to take!"
Re:Because (Score:5, Interesting)
In sensible jurisdictions, the act of running a program is not a copyright event, since it does not involve distribution. When you download, compile, and execute something from Github, the only copyright event is Github distributing the source file. The rest is not of concern to copyright law.
Alas, when copyright was conceived, copying and distribution were practically one and the same, so "right to distribute" was unfortunately misnamed "copyright". Many jurisdictions later looked at computers and misunderstood any bit duplication to be a copyright event. Denmark is one of the most extreme cases, where every (ISP or otherwise) router is subject to copyright law whenever it moves copyrighted bits around. That level of absurdity is fortunately fairly rare.
Re:Because (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they should put a warning up for people, that by downloading and compiling the code you could be in violation of the law,
By analogy, this would be like the artist putting up a track for download and saying it's illegal to listen to.
Re: (Score:2)
It's incredibly unreasonable. If I put a TV in my shop window, you may be able to watch it, but that doesn't mean you have permission to change the channel, or take it home with you. Likewise, if somebody puts code on the Internet, then you can read it. The way the law works in the majority of the world, if you don't have an explicit grant of permission to copy something, or a specific reason to think
Re:Because (Score:5, Insightful)
this. i've only used github for my personal projects. not everyone cares about contributing to open source projects, or making their code available to others. and there's nothing wrong with that. not everyone should be expected to share their work.
shocking and unbelievable, i know, but it's true.
Re: (Score:3)
One semester I used it for my homework. Lots of .tex and .m files. I could do a problem, commit. Push go to a completely separate computer, pull and continue working.
Re:Because (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Because (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
not everyone should be expected to share their work.
Nor should Github be expected to host such repositories for free.
That's true. However, if Github can afford to provide the service for free and chooses to do so, I see no harm in it.
Re: (Score:2)
not everyone should be expected to share their work.
Nor should Github be expected to host such repositories for free.
And? There is no requirement that GitHub do so, but the maintainers of GitHub have chosen to do it.
What-the-fuck business is it of yours what they choose to do?
Bitbucket (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
And you can attach files to your issues in the issue tracker (amazingly you can't on Github).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If memory serves, the original post I linked was written by Scott Chacon [scottchacon.com], and was served on GitHub proper/blog for some time. The link I gave appears to be the last remaining mirror that Google finds.
Re: (Score:2)
That's more than I pay for shared web hosting with "unlimited" everything, including shell access and the ability to set up my own private Git / Hg / Svn repositories.
StackOverflow is even worse! (Score:3, Informative)
Every question, answer, and comment on the StackExchange websites (StackOverflow, ServerFault, et. al.) is automatically licensed on something very akin to the GPL (the Creative Commons Share Alike License); if you use code from those sites, your entire application's source will legally have to be released.
Just because no one is talking about that doesn't mean it isn't legit. Check it out: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/25956/what-is-up-with-the-source-code-license-on-stack-overflow [stackoverflow.com]
Re:StackOverflow is even worse! (Score:4, Interesting)
In order to have copyright you must first create a work. Most of the code examples that people post on those sites are so short and trivial that I doubt that very many of them (as published in isolation) would qualify as works in most jurisdictions. Even if you have a code example that is complex enough to qualify as a work you could still probably copy-paste a few lines from that work without breaching the copyright, especially if those lines are trivial or obvious or constitute best practice in the language.
Personal use allowed ? Can share via github ref ? (Score:2)
Of course if the individual wants to share the work with someone else they merely have to refer that person to the original author's github repository.
So if someone creates a useful a utility program, decides to license it in a non-FOSS manner, the author
Re: (Score:2)
Github is only a problem in the original article if you subscribe to a certain political viewpoint.
That (Score:4, Interesting)
Is only a problem in places where computer algorithms can be patented. and beside, anyone just grabbing code and pasting direct onto a product without audit or modification is asking for a nice backdoor.
Re: (Score:2)
Urheberrecht (Score:2)
For one, [the German counterpart to copyright is] an author's right. Not a publisher's right. The fundamental difference in philosophy that that entails, should be obvious.
The U.S. Constitution in theory espouses the same philosophy, as exclusive rights are secured "to authors and inventors".
And you can never ever sell your rights away. Ever.
How does Germany handle works made in the scope of employment?
You can act as if, but you can always go "Fuck you, cooww and shee-keeenn! Now you can't use it anymore!" if they are stupid enough to fall for it.
If an author signs a contract with another party granting an exclusive license to publish a given work, is that unenforceable?
And so you do not need to write *anything* below your works.
The U.S. hasn't required a notice since 1989 when the U.S implemented the Berne Convention, but it provides evidence that strengthens a copyright owner's case in court.
Re: (Score:2)
You can act as if, but you can always go "Fuck you, cooww and shee-keeenn! Now you can't use it anymore!" if they are stupid enough to fall for it.
If an author signs a contract with another party granting an exclusive license to publish a given work, is that unenforceable?
Of course it's enforceable. The OP doesn't have a clue.
Re: (Score:2)
For a somewhat more accurate view, look at e.g. Intellectual property protection in Germany and the EU [worldcommercereview.com].
The GP must have looked at the origins of Germanic copyright legislation and decided that it both sounds sane and could be a good idea overall (except for the duration perhaps). Alas, like "Intellectual Property" in every other place, the scope gets larger and the results more similar to the rest of the world.
The original US copyright law also sounds like a sane and workable system, even though it was diff
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, "Urheberrecht" is due to an EU directive, which mandated the whole thing throughout the EU a bit over a decade ago. It applies to the whole EU today.
Also, if memory serves, it was pushed forward by the -- at the time French -- EC commissioner in charge of property rights (though I'd need to double check that, so take the latter point with a grain of salt), on grounds that (this much I'm sure of) a workers' writing/coding/music/movie shouldn't ever belong to his editor or publisher, but to the auth
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Who does that? Piracy requires an ocean, ships, and lots of brutal, hand-to-hand combat effort.
Modern theft has been reduced to legislation.
Not a new problem (Score:4, Insightful)
This certainly isn't a new problem. If you work for a corporation, you aren't going to use code without a clear license. At least, I hope you aren't. If you need clarification about a license, you can often just contact the author. Just because the website is called "Github" doesn't mean you should treat the code any differently than code you find laying around anywhere else.
So if you have a lawyer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does that make it the fault of the developers, though?
If you are pressed by management to find a solution before you leave for the day, you'll probably spend some time looking at the problem yourself to discover what you need to Google to find an answer.
Don't blame developers when they are so constrained.
Re: (Score:2)
Developers in corporations download random code from the web and incorporate it into their projects all the time.
Yes, but we call it "research"
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly - this is nothing new. You could be cutting and pasting from anywhere on the web and the exact same hazard exists. You should not be cutting and pasting without knowing the license, from Github or anywhere else.
Unsafe? (Score:4, Informative)
Code having a license term, you use it under that license. Whats the problem. So you can't cut an paste it. Good. But as a example of an implementation its still very useful/educational.
The license chosen isup to the author, get over it. This militant 'I want it all for free and without me having to do anything' is your problem, not the authors.
Re:Unsafe? (Score:5, Informative)
"But as a example of an implementation its still very useful/educational."
And opens you up to the possibility of being accused of creating a derivative work, which violates "All Rights Reserved".
So what ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Lawyers. The EFF. The FSF. Anyone who makes a living on copyright.
Re: (Score:3)
Take code from GitHub, copy/paste, re-implement ideas you find there, possibly implemented badly.... C'mon, who gives a damn about copyright on GitHub ????
The owners. The courts. Your employers. Your clients, among others.
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets say I stumble across a fantastic utility, and the source is open for me to view. I'll dive through the code and make sure I'm comfortable with its functionality (i.e. it's not doing anything I don't want it to do) before grabbing the tool.
I'm not using the code for my own projects. I'm just vetting the code. Plenty of developers throw code for small utilities up for exactly this reason, and the vast majority of the world is totally cool with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why post it on GitHub? (Score:5, Insightful)
C'mon, it ain't that hard.
1. Post it on Github
2. Make everyone think it's free to use.
3. Sue everyone you can get your hands on who do.
4. Profit
Re: (Score:2)
C'mon, it ain't that hard.
1. Post it on Github
2. Make everyone think it's free to use.
3. Sue everyone you can get your hands on who do.
4. Profit
You forgot the ???
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points. +1 funny/insightful. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
2. Make everyone think it's free to use.
3. Sue everyone you can get your hands on who do.
4. Get annoyed that a court finds the existence of an implied licence, or, in some nuanced cases, that the action is prevented under the principle of non-derogation from grant. Assuming the defendant can afford to argue.
Re: (Score:2)
4. Get annoyed that a court finds the existence of an implied licence, or, in some nuanced cases, that the action is prevented under the principle of non-derogation from grant. Assuming the defendant can afford to argue
Please. Come back to reality.
When in the recent past have you seen a court rule on copyright with common sense?
Seriously, put down the bong.
Re:Why post it on GitHub? (Score:4, Informative)
When in the recent past have you seen a court rule on copyright with common sense?
I'm not sure that Usedsoft [europa.eu] applied common sense, but rather some convoluted reasoning, but the outcome seems sensible enough. Picking on rulings relevant here, I think the US court's decision in Wallace v. IBM [uscourts.gov] was common sense, as was the finding of the German court in Welte v. Skype [gnumonks.org].
Perhaps look also at Griggs v. Evans [bailii.org] — a pragmatic decision on the facts, to my mind.
Sure, there are some odd judgments, but there are some sensible, practical judges out there too.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting links. Thanks... F.P.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting links. Thanks.
My pleasure. If you do read the Usedsoft decision, there's a good chance you'll find it pretty impenetrable, unless you are familiar with the computer programs directive — I prepared some slides [neilzone.co.uk] for a friend's talk on Usedsoft a couple of weeks back, which you might find helpful alongside the decision. (Listed as (c) to me (ironic, given the thread here) but, as far as I'm concerned, treat as CC0 [creativecommons.org].)
Reading code can be useful on its own (Score:3, Insightful)
The author seems to confuse open source with copyleft. Open source is not a legal thing. And a ban on redistribution of derivative works doesn't mean that it's useless. Knowing the source code of a piece of software is important if you want to use it for any security-sensitive work or if you want to implement some modifications of your own (which you don't intend to distribute). It's not unheard of even that a developer company only gives the source code to their paying costumers.
Re:Reading code can be useful on its own (Score:5, Insightful)
Open Source, as defined by the Open Source Initiative, is most definitively a legal thing.
a ban on redistribution of derivative works doesn't mean that it's useless. Knowing the source code of a piece of software is important if you want to use it for any security-sensitive work or if you want to implement some modifications of your own (which you don't intend to distribute). It's not unheard of even that a developer company only gives the source code to their paying costumers.
This is why the author says it's dangerous.
Unlicensed code ("All rights reserved") is not a ban on redistribution. It's a ban on any copying, including forking the code to your machine. You most definitively can't modify the code, even if you don't intend to distribute it.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright is a right to copy. To use the code privately, you need to copy it to your machine. That's forbidden.
(Yes, I know that to read the files on Github you technically need to download them. Guess what, courts aren't idiots, and they're perfectly capable of understanding the distinction).
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, grabbing it for personal use like that is technically fair use.
Citation needed. I've read Section 107 more than once and 'personal use' ain't in it.
Re: (Score:3)
IANAL, but I have been led to believe that code that is all rights reserved cannot be modified without consent of the author, unless it falls under the fair use exemption of copyright.
The fact that your modifications could reduce the profitability of the copyright owners derivative works lead me to suspect that the courts would generally find that your changes are a copyright violation, even if they are no
Sensationalist article stating the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether you are working on proprietary code or open source code, you can't just paste code from the net into your project without a license, regardless of whether it's GPL, BSD, or some royalty-free use grant. Unless the code has an explicit license, or states explicitly that it is in the public domain, you simply cannot use it without express permission from the copyright holder, because no law grants you that right. Plain and simple. So if code in a git repo is "all rights reserved," the you can look, and even download it, but you cannot put it into your own code. So I don't see what the problem is here. License always matters, whether you're a FLOSS person or developing commercial software.
So of course half of all git repos are unsafe to use. Why does this warrant some big sensationalist article? Kind of along the lines of articles claiming the GPL is a threat to proprietary software companies because it will "infect" them somehow magically. Folks, a little bit of understanding of copyright law will go a long ways I think. Open source, even copyleft, depends on copyright to keep it as such. We should all have a basic understanding of it.
Re: (Score:2)
You can take any code which you find and put it into your project, or even combine bits of code with incompatible licenses. What you can't do is distribute the result. Distribution is where copyright law kicks in.
Re: (Score:3)
You can take any code which you find and put it into your project, or even combine bits of code with incompatible licenses.
Distribution might be where GNU GPL 2.0 kicks in, but copyright certainly kicks in to prevent you from just taking code and putting it into your own project, at least in Europe — the restriction on "copying," for example. (You might have a defence of fair use in the US, but that's an affirmative defense, not an absence of copyright.)
Whether anyone would find out, or consider it worth suing for, is perhaps another matter, but copyright is not just limited to distribution.
Re: (Score:3)
It is true that the law grants the copyright owner the right to restrict the creation of copies, but It can be reasonably argued that by posting the code on GitHub you've implicitly given consent to the mere creation of a copy (as would automatically happen if you view the code or download it). For most practical purposes, the limitation on distribution is what matters.
Re: (Score:3)
Distribution is where copyright law kicks in.
Like when you distribute the program from your drive to your RAM?
Now if the program is all rights reserved, and your modified version that you distribute mocks the original author, you could claim the parody exception for copyright. (Would you be successful? I don't know about that question, ask an attorney.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
because no law grants you that right.
No no no... You have that right by default, unless the law denies it. You can repeat some code, natural right to free speech protected by the constitution.
However, some restrictions may apply. One of those restrictions is, if someone else wrote the code, their work may be protected by copyright.
If they register their copyright with the US copyright office, within a certain time period after having created the work, they could sue you for infringement.
In
Missing the problem here (Score:5, Insightful)
Github doesn't claim to provide a repository for open source software...just a place to store repositories which you (as an author) may or may not choose to attach a license to. But that doesn't remove the responsibility of the copier to determine what the license on that software may be. If I copy anything, I need to know if I have the right (copy right) to do that. The onus is and always has been on the copier. That said, the copyright owner is the one who will follow up with violations.
Just because I choose to use github to store my repositories (and, in my case, I use and pay for private repositories for those things that I don't want to share) does not mean that I want everyone in the world to download and use my stuff. I'm an idiot if I am surprised when people DO use my stuff that I make publicly available, but without an explicit license allowing use of my code, it is protected in the US by copyright laws as soon as I write it...and IANAL.
Github is just a great service for those of us who don't want to set up our own repository. They are not a guarantor of free software, nor a nanny to protect me.
Re: (Score:2)
Github doesn't claim to provide a repository for open source software
Agreed, although it does claim to be a platform for "social coding," and that it is [github.com] "the best place to share code with friends, co-workers, classmates, and complete strangers," having been founded "to simplify sharing code."
I am not reading the article as anything more than "if GitHub wants to promote sharing of code, make it easier for a developer to specify licensing terms" — and that seems imminently sensible to me.
Re:Missing the problem here (Score:5, Informative)
Just because I choose to use github to store my repositories (and, in my case, I use and pay for private repositories for those things that I don't want to share) does not mean that I want everyone in the world to download and use my stuff.
Just so you know, in the terms-and-services you clicked on when you signed up for github, you actually gave permission to everyone in the world to download, view, and fork your stuff. So if that's not what you want, you might reconsider your use of github (Note: this only applies to the free public repositories).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What does that really mean, legally (I know what it means technically)?
From a legal standpoint, of course it's a horribly unclear terms-of-service, so you are right when you say, "I guess that's why the lawyers continue to do what they do." However, I think the implicit meaning could be reasonably interpreted to mean, "if you put things here, you intend to share them."
In general it's easier to pursue a copyright claim if you've made an active attempt to assert it, for example, submitting your work to the Library of Congress. So if you haven't specified a license, or made an
Original author loses nothing by forking ? (Score:2)
Just so you know, in the terms-and-services you clicked on when you signed up for github, you actually gave permission to everyone in the world to download, view, and fork your stuff.
True. However the original copyright remains intact. Maybe you could add your copyright to code that you add. The original author doesn't seem to lose anything by forking. Well other than individuals may download and privately use, but not redistribute, the forked version rather than the original version.
Re: (Score:2)
Well other than individuals may download and privately use, but not redistribute, the forked version rather than the original version.
It is unlikely that any court will interpret the terms of service to mean that you can fork it, but not allow others to fork a forked version. It's unlikely that any court would stop redistribution.
You can try filing a lawsuit, and good luck to you. I'd like to see that one play out in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Well other than individuals may download and privately use, but not redistribute, the forked version rather than the original version.
It is unlikely that any court will interpret the terms of service to mean that you can fork it, but not allow others to fork a forked version. It's unlikely that any court would stop redistribution.
Who said anything about not allowing the fork to be forked? By redistribution I mean something *other* than the source being available on github as part of the original author's hierarchy. Such *other* methods of distribution remain subject to the authors' wishes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but if you don't specify that your wishes are contrary, you will have trouble winning a court case based on non-specified wishes.
I'm sorry but I'm not following. Your wishes being contrary do not change the original author's wishes. The original author's wishes move to the fork with his code. There could only be contrary wishes in the code that you contribute. People would be free to re-use source from you contributions if your allow but the original code remains off limits wrt re-use.
Re: (Score:2)
The goal for the author should be to make his wishes known in a way that the courts will be willing to enforce the copyright. There are ways to do this, for example, you can submit your work to the library of congress.
Now, if you don't even include a license in your repository, and just throw it
I don't see the story. (Score:3)
GitHub allows creators to determine what license to publish under. The license is disclosed to downloaders. Some of it is under an open license. Some of it isn't.
"Is this code using a license compatible to my project?" is a pretty normal thing to ask before dropping something into your work.
Personally, I like having access to look at source on closed projects - projects I wouldn't otherwise have access to. You can learn stuff even if you don't copy/paste working code.
Next on slashdot... (Score:3)
Half of Coffee Shop Unsafe to Drink (If You Want Decaf)
Terms of github (Score:5, Interesting)
We claim no intellectual property rights over the material you provide to the Service. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours. However, by setting your pages to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view your Content. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories.
If you use source code found on github, it's going to be hard for the author to win a copyright lawsuit. This is a non-issue. They've basically allowed you to fork the code (with the implication that you're going to modify it). I don't see them in any way being able to recover punitive or even statutory damages.
The real danger with github, as with all open source, is ensuring that the project's owner hasn't stolen proprietary code from somewhere else. Imagine if Linus had grabbed some files from Unix, then IBM would have been in a lot more difficulty during the SCO case. Fortunately the only things Linus copied were semicolons and braces.
But if you use someone's code through an open source project, you can be liable, even if you got the code under the GPL or BSD license, because the project's owner didn't have the right to give you that code.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Good points.
It sounds like the original poster comes from that school of thought that expects every hosting service or ISP to defend property rights on behalf of the owners. That's not GitHub or Megaupload's job. The world would be different if the RIAA had sued Postel and Reynolds for writing RFC 959 (FTP) for not incorporating DRM.
Forking doesn't remove copyright (Score:2)
We claim no intellectual property rights over the material you provide to the Service. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours. However, by setting your pages to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view your Content. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories.
If you use source code found on github, it's going to be hard for the author to win a copyright lawsuit. This is a non-issue. They've basically allowed you to fork the code (with the implication that you're going to modify it). I don't see them in any way being able to recover punitive or even statutory damages.
Forking doesn't remove copyright. All that seems to have been accomplished by forking is adding someone else's possibly copyrighted work to the original author's copyrighted work.
Re: (Score:2)
If you use source code found on github, it's going to be hard for the author to win a copyright lawsuit. This is a non-issue. They've basically allowed you to fork the code (with the implication that you're going to modify it). I don't see them in any way being able to recover punitive or even statutory damages.
So under what license do you have the code, if it doesn't have one? Are you're going to claim that this CYA sentence in the terms of service that GitHub have put there to avoid being sued for handing out "unlicensed" copies to people is the same as the author putting the code in the public domain? I think you'd get laughed out of court with that defense. For sure it protects GitHub distributing the code, it probably protects you cloning the repository but you for sure hasn't been granted any "exclusive righ
Re:Terms of github (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you publish and given away a copy of a work does not mean you have released any claim to copyright on it. This is not trademark law where protect it or lose it applies.
Try reading some of the many fine primers available at the SFLC. http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ [softwarefreedom.org]
People misunderstanding the point of Github? (Score:4, Informative)
I think so!
The public repository option for uploading makes no mention that you need to supply the code with a copyleft/copyright free license, just that the code is publicly listed and browsable. Why are people assuming that everyone is supposed to?
Are people confusing open source (publicly browsable source) from Open Source (the movement)?
Not only a problem with Github (Score:4, Interesting)
Lots of so called open source projects either don't provide a license or provide conflicting license information. For example, we recently looked at a project where the web site says it's MIT, but the code says it's public domain.
Re: (Score:2)
And some that you would expect to be clueful are surprisingly not, or are at least very sloppy. I recently was studying an example in the Pyside code base. Pyside, a major project, from Qt, owned by Digia, formerly owned by Nokia. People you would expect to be clueful. I looked quite diligently for license information. I found in a directory some levels up from the code I was studying a one sentence "licensed under GPLv2". Okaaaaaay....., how about since each example is a stand-alone program in a stan
GitHub FUD © (Score:2)
Well, before you use the software, checkout the license
Email the developer (Score:2)
Half is a bad estimate (Score:2)
Ignorance is no excuse (Score:2)
Why not? (Score:2)
A private repo costs money. Hosting elsewhere costs more.
Maybe saving on hosting outweighs the downside of their code being public.
picking a license is too hard? (Score:2)
"All Rights Reserved." Is a meaningless phrase (Score:4, Insightful)
The phrase "All Rights Reserved" is a totally meaningless phrase. It used to be required to retain certain rights in central american countries. It was created by the Buenos Ares convention, and once everybody in central and south america adopted the Berne convention, the phrase no longer had any recognized legal meaning.
It has falsely been asserted that the phrase "All Rights Reserved" makes the Berkeley Copyright statement non-free. This is false because the copyright notices from the Berkeley Unix code base date to a time when the phrase had meaning.
It's only use today is due to inertia.
In short, this article is quite sensational in its ignorance.
Re: (Score:3)
That depends on the definition of "open source" you use. If it's the one by the Open Source Initiative, it certainly does mean you can use and distribute the code.
Re: (Score:2)
Not unconditionally true.
Open source licenses exists to prevent certain types of distribution (otherwise, just use public domain).
For instance, some licenses will not allow you to change code and distribute it under the original name.
Most open source licenses prevent you from removing the copyright notice from code you distribute.
Many prevent you from removing author attribution from code distributions.
Re: (Score:2)
...especially when there is nothing in the code to indicate what the license is.
It's like a hotel mini-bar but with no indication or understanding that you actually have to pay for the overpriced booze and peanuts. This hotel is in a hippie commune where the usual rules don't apply. So it's not obvious that crass rules apply.
So you don't make the usual default assumption that everything has dire restrictions by default, that everything has a price, and that they will try to charge you for those booze and p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ohhh NooooEeeesses!! This is exactly like getting a tar.gz of the source!!!!! $DEITY save us all!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, worrying about licensing every piece of code you write is just a time-suck.
Not really, because there are a few ready-made pre packaged licenses to suit your taste.
Personally I like the GPL, so random small things I've released (quite a few) just had a stock LICENSE which is just a copy of the GPL. Took a good 10 seconds. I guess you could count that as a time suck, but I probably spent more time worrying about what to call the program.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you are looking for the BSD or MIT license.