[OT] Legal issues in SW development [Was: Proposal: Constant Tables]

[Lorenzo Donati <lorenzodonatibz@...>]

On 14/08/2011 1.18, marbux wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:30 PM, David Given<dg@cowlark.com>  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.
>
> 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:

Thank you for the legally-informed insight!

> -- 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.

I cannot tell for this one in particular, but Italy has a very bad 
record for ratifying EU directives with long delays. :-(

[...]

> As someone developing a set of scripting tools for free distribution,
> I find it somewhat irksome when snippets are published under the
> MIT/X11 license or similar that require including a separate copy of
> the license used in the script or its readme for each separate snippet
> used. (MIT/X11 requires inclusion of "this notice", which includes the
> author's name and copyright date so quite literally a separate copy
> required for each snippet recycled.)
>
> Commonly, the license is longer than the snippet,

I never realized that. Good to know!

> leaving me to wonder
> whether the people who slapped that license on their snippets realized
> that the license requires inclusion of a copy of it with each
> republication of the original or a derivative work. See e.g.,
> <http://snippets.luacode.org/>  (all licensed under MIT/X11).
>
> 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.
> </opinion>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Paul

Cheers.
-- Lorenzo