Re: Proposal: Constant Tables

[KHMan <keinhong@...>]

On 8/14/2011 7:18 AM, marbux wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:30 PM, David Given wrote:
> > > What is the implicit license if someone doesn't declare one then?
> >
> > In theory, none --- without a license, the code cannot be redistributed
> > at all.
> [snip]
> I'm happy to say that I am no longer a lawyer although I was until I
> retired. Copyright infringement is a difficult topic on which to
> generalize. It's not quite as iron-clad as stated. There are
> exceptions. For example:
>
> -- The fair use exception applies in most jurisdictions; however what
> constitutes "fair use" isn't clear cut in most situations. I'll hazard
> a guess that most courts would likely hold that it's fair use to quote
> an email when replying to it. :-)
>
> -- The E.U. has a directive exempting copying for personal use.
>
> -- The U.S. and IIRC the E.U. as well have exemptions to copy object
> code for interoperability reverse engineering purposes and a few other
> limited purposes.
>
> But it's accurate to say that in the nations party to the Berne
> Convention (163 nations, IIRC), a copyright automatically vests in an
> author created upon first publication. It's an opt-out approach; the
> author has that right until and unless s/he opts out.

Very nice and well done, at least someone is talking about these 
things. Without the exemptions, everyone is a walking serial 
violator, or everything will grind to a halt. I quite pity a 
civilization that relinquishes these things to a legal climate 
that is mindlessly applying "extreme legal opinions that doesn't 
give an atom any wriggle room" that it seems to have become the norm.

> > In practice,
>
> <opinion>
> The real problem is that the applicable law is way too far removed
> from practice, practicality, and expectations, leaving almost everyone
> who uses a computer at the mercy of those with an incentive to file
> lawsuits.

I would add that the ways of large corporations (and other 
organizations that behave badly) are not exemplary role models for 
human beings to follow, as their legal arms often seek overbearing 
legal power or control, like swatting a fly with a nuclear bomb. 
If say EEs want to stick to the exact letter of a tyrannical 
intellectual property regime, then we might as well close shop now.

People have compared some large corporations with their 
"individual rights" to psychotic individuals -- too much power and 
nobody pushing back against extreme behaviour. Or, money + 
henchmen = tyranny or worse. Few want to go up against them and so 
the pushback is weak.

> > Um... this advice is redistributable under the terms of the CC0 Creative
> > Commons License (all rights possible waived).
>
> CC0 is great. Also endorsed by the FSF for those who want to put works
> in the public domain.
> [snip]

I still see GNU project devs saying that they are 'committing as 
obvious' or not needing paperwork on file for short code changes 
(tending to the obvious). So perhaps they are foolish, and I too 
will stick with these foolish people.

> I'd much rather work with CC0 snippets or with snippets  under a
> license that requires only the URL for the license. Far less bother to
> include a comment pointing to the license or copyright waiver than to
> include the license.

P.S. To be clear, I do not mean to be arguing with those who 
disagree, let us be free to adopt a diversity of positions or 
opinions on these things.

Thanks to the legal practitioners these days, common sense and 
sane behaviour seems to have become a distant memory for some of 
us who have once, in the past, been embraced by a more enlightened 
climate.

--
Cheers,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia