[DUG] Open source licences

Wed Dec 7 17:23:35 NZDT 2005

Yes. I know. My points were not so much aimed at GPL specifically, but as  
software developers ourselves
and the attempts to ignore or bypass others licensing.

By doing such things you are isolating people from wanting to give you  
their code and sharing.
You are also putting yourself in the shoes of a common pirate.
If you are a pirate, then you should not be selling your own software, but  
allowing people to pirate it.

Contract law in most places does not require a contract to be signed, as  
long as there is a clear indication
of what should happen and the fact that you are using it.

If someone "gives" you code, that came from the "net" and you say "Well,  
hey. no licenses here" because you/they
deleted them from the code then it is no different than receiving stolen  
goods. As a receiver you are culpable for not checking out the facts. And  
like any goods. they get repossesed.

As the saying goes. "Theives dont steal from Thieves" as a courtesy.....

So sayeth 2c.

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:12:23 +1300, Leigh Wanstead <leighw at softtech.co.nz>  
wrote:

> Hi Kyley,
>
> I am monitoring this post too. ;-)
>
> I agreed all you said. But go to the court is very very dear for both  
> party.
>
> Regards
> Leigh
> http://www.salenz.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: delphi-bounces at ns3.123.co.nz
> [mailto:delphi-bounces at ns3.123.co.nz]On Behalf Of Kyley Harris
> Sent: Wednesday, 7 December 2005 4:51 p.m.
> To: grant at sitedoc.com.au; NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List
> Subject: Re: [DUG] Open source licences
>
>
> Yes, you are saying that you abide by piracy as being ok if not caught?
>
> Just because I release something for free to the public, doesn't mean I  
> am
> allowing you to take it for the purpose of making a profit. Patenting an
> idea does
> not mean that you intend to charge for it. It means that you have decided
> on the correct
> path for your IT property to follow.
>
> The whole point of the license is to create large quanities of quality
> free software
> alternatives, not to allow people who cant do it themselves profit from
> the idea, by
> wrapping and selling to people who didn't know better.
>
> It is no different than finding a cure for cancer, and releasing the
> information
> as long as you don't charge for the cure. Its called helping mankind.
> If you tried to make a profit you'd be in court real fast.
>
> There are plenty of GPL cases in court who win. just follow the  
> newspapers
> to see them.
>
> I would love to see someone recompile Linux with a new branding and call
> it DamnGood OS and
> sell it for $100 a copy. Does anyone seriously think Linus wouldn't see
> you in court?
>
>
> By the way. All newspapers do have copyrights. Infact all written word is
> copyright by default,
> and if you took that text from a newspaper and reprinted it within the
> legal boundaries of plagurism
> you'd be screwed there too.
>
> Being Free makes is worthless? then why would you want to use it. Its not
> free. It has a license which
> has conditions. Those conditions set a non-monetary worth on the work.  
> Not
> everything is valued by dollars.
> Think of it like a priceless painting; not being able to price it does  
> not
> make it worthless. You also cant
> make copies and sell it without permission either.
>
> As far as being unaware....... come on. If you find $100 bucks on the  
> road
> you are legally obliged to hand it
> into the cops. I bet you don't, but you are breaking a law. Common Sense
> law. Nothing is free unless you have
> a contract stating its free. Thats the default interpretation.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:55:35 +1300, Grant Brown <grant at sitedoc.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi to all,
>>
>> I have kept an eye on this thread with some interest, and whilst I am
>> not a lawyer I don't believe that open source licenses of any nature
>> would stand up in court.
>>
>> Nor do I think much of click through license agreements. You need a
>> written and signed contract not an action to form the basis of an
>> agreement.
>>
>> After the agreement has been enacted by way of signing by all parties
>> then yes actions matter but not before. This certainly applies to
>> construction contracts, however OS's may be different.
>>
>> Being open source the code in question by default is placed in a public
>> forum, which I would have thought negates the license.
>>
>> If that were not the case then every newspaper in the world would
>> attract a license agreement.
>>
>> Being open source (ie free) then the code has no value so there can be
>> no loss by the owner, hence no claim for loss.
>>
>> The other interesting point is that if you are going to place code in
>> open source, then why place any kind of agreement on it at all, kind of
>> defeats the purpose.
>>
>> Also where does the agreement start, anyone could just say the code was
>> given to them and did not download it from the owners site and hence not
>> agreed to any sort of license.
>>
>> Has any open source license ever been tested in court, it would be
>> interesting to read the transcript.
>>
>> As I said before I'm not a lawyer, but I think one would be very hard
>> pressed to run a case based upon open source code and some sort of
>> perceived loss due to a end user agreement.
>>
>> My personal view is that if something is provided as open source then
>> its open source, not open source with a huge "BUT" attached.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kyley Harris
> +64-21-671821
> _______________________________________________
> Delphi mailing list
> Delphi at ns3.123.co.nz
> http://ns3.123.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Delphi mailing list
> Delphi at ns3.123.co.nz
> http://ns3.123.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi

-- 
Kyley Harris
+64-21-671821