Re：艺术许可证（窃取许可证？） - 开源版权 [英] Re: Artistic License (license to steal?) - Open Source copyrights

问题描述

On Thu，2008年8月14日10:09:01 -0700，raylopez99写道：

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:09:01 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:

如果你为了钱的代码而害怕这个最近的裁决艺术

许可证。

Be afraid, if you code for money, with this recent ruling on Artistic
Licenses.

上述案例的事实是，该人拿了一整份申请

并在经过一些小修改后分发，即他们没有对整个事情做多少钱。这是彻头彻尾的盗窃。如果某人偷了你正在销售的应用程序然后分发它，你会怎么感觉b



有什么区别？


Artistic，GPL和LGPL是许可证，Public Domain完全不同于b
。您需要阅读并理解版权，否则您将会违反规定。


我有权决定我的作品是如何使用的，即版权。我使用Open

源许可来保护我的工作免遭未经授权的使用。对我来说，

未经授权的使用正在以我的工作方式使用它，而不是免费使用它，因为对其他人开放使用。我做了有偿工作，这是我的雇主的版权所有，并且它是封闭的来源，我永远不会窃取

代码并使用它也因为版权。


请注意，大多数开源软件可以在内部使用和修改，因为它永远不会分发。谷歌不会向公众发布他们所有代码变更，因为它是一种智能的商业模式，他们的相当一部分更改会让他们回归原因。

Ken

The facts of the case above are that the person took a whole application
and distributed it after some minor modifications, ie they did not do
much at all to the whole thing. It was outright theft. How would you
feel if someone stole your application that you were selling and then
distributed it. What is the difference?

Artistic, GPL and LGPL are licenses, Public Domain is a totally
different thing. You need to read and understand copyright or else you
will fall foul of things.

I am entitled to dictate how my work is used, ie copyright. I use Open
Source licenses to protect my work from unauthorised use. For me,
unauthorised use is taking my work and using it in a way that is no
longer free, as in open to others to use. I do paid work and it is
copyright to my employer and it is closed source, I would never steal
that code and use it because of copyright as well.

Note that most open source software is fine to use and modify in in house
applications because it is never distributed. Google does not release
all their code changes to the public, a fair number of their changes make
their way back because it is a smart business model.

Ken

推荐答案

8月14日，2：58 * pm，Ken Foskey< rmove.fos ... @ optushome.com.auwrote：

On Aug 14, 2:58*pm, Ken Foskey <[e-mail]:

请注意，大多数开源软件可以在内部使用和修改

应用程序，因为它是从未分发过。 *谷歌不会向公众发布所有代码更改，因为它是一种智能商业模式，因此相当数量的更改会让他们回归原因。
。 >

Note that most open source software is fine to use and modify in in house
applications because it is never distributed. *Google does not release
all their code changes to the public, a fair number of their changes make
their way back because it is a smart business model.

当他们回到商业世界时，如果该代码是

''关闭''你违反艺术许可，不？


阅读此主题的大多数人的底线：相信

公共混淆器在隐藏代码方面做得很好，否则

您所抄写的代码的版权所有者可能会起诉您的

雇主！ （很久以后，程序员，已经转移到另一个

工作）。


RL

And when they make it back into the commercial world, if that code is
''closed'' you run afoul of the artistic license, no?

Bottom line for most of the people reading this thread: trust the
public obfuscator is doing a good job hiding your code, else the
copyright owner of the code you cribbed is likely to sue your
employer! (long after you, the programmer, have moved onto another
job).

RL

8月15日上午10：30 * am，raylopez99< raylope ... @ yahoo.comwrote：

On Aug 15, 10:30*am, raylopez99 <[e-mail]:

8月14日，2：58 * pm，Ken Foskey< rmove.fos ... @ optushome.com.auwrote：

On Aug 14, 2:58*pm, Ken Foskey <[e-mail]:

请注意，大多数开源软件都可以在中使用和修改房子

申请，因为它从未分发过。 *谷歌不会向公众发布所有代码更改，因为它是一种智能商业模式，他们的相当一部分更改会让他们回来。

Note that most open source software is fine to use and modify in in house
applications because it is never distributed. *Google does not release
all their code changes to the public, a fair number of their changes make
their way back because it is a smart business model.

当他们回到商业世界时，如果那个代码是

''关闭''你会碰到艺术许可证，不是吗？

And when they make it back into the commercial world, if that code is
''closed'' you run afoul of the artistic license, no?

我想你已经错过了Ken的观点。商业

世界中的许多代码从未在公司外部分发 - 它是内部的b $ b b应用程序，或者在服务器上运行。那时你不需要担心分配条款，因为你没有分发你的代码
。是的，如果你要分发你的代码还有更多工作要做 -

但通常它只是意味着给予应有的信用。

I think you''ve missed Ken''s point. A lot of code in the commercial
world is never distributed outside the company - it''s in-house
applications, or running on a server. At that point you don''t need to
worry about the distribution clauses, because you''re not distributing
your code. Yes, there''s more to do if you''re distributing your code -
but often it still only means giving credit where it''s due.

阅读此帖子的大多数人的底线：*信任

公共混淆器在隐藏代码方面做得很好，否则

您所抄写的代码的版权所有者可能会起诉您的b
雇主！ （很久以后，程序员，已经转移到另一个

工作）。

Bottom line for most of the people reading this thread: *trust the
public obfuscator is doing a good job hiding your code, else the
copyright owner of the code you cribbed is likely to sue your
employer! (long after you, the programmer, have moved onto another
job).

这真的不应该是底线。这就像是说，谋杀法的底线是小心隐藏身体的时候。b $ b杀人，否则你会被捕。

底线应该是：了解您想要的任何代码的许可证

使用，并遵守该许可证。在任何

怀疑时咨询法律顾问。通过开源项目很好地发挥 - 它们有很多可供选择，

和许可证的要求通常非常合理。


Jon

That really shouldn''t be the bottom line. That''s like saying that the
bottom line of murder laws is "be careful to hide the body when you
kill people otherwise you''ll get arrested."
The bottom line should be: understand the licence of any code you want
to use, and abide by that licence. Consult legal counsel when in any
doubt. Play nicely by open source projects - they have a lot to offer,
and the demands of the licence are usually very reasonable.

Jon

8月15日，3：03 * am，Jon Skeet [C＃MVP]" < sk ... @ pobox.comwrote：

On Aug 15, 3:03*am, "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <[e-mail]:

当他们回到商业世界时，如果该代码是

''关闭''你违反了艺术执照，不是吗？

And when they make it back into the commercial world, if that code is
''closed'' you run afoul of the artistic license, no?

我想你已经错过了Ken的观点。商业

世界中的许多代码从未在公司外部分发 - 它是内部的b $ b b应用程序，或者在服务器上运行。那时你不需要担心分配条款，因为你没有分发你的代码
。是的，如果你要分发你的代码还有更多工作要做 -

但通常它只是意味着给予应有的信用。

I think you''ve missed Ken''s point. A lot of code in the commercial
world is never distributed outside the company - it''s in-house
applications, or running on a server. At that point you don''t need to
worry about the distribution clauses, because you''re not distributing
your code. Yes, there''s more to do if you''re distributing your code -
but often it still only means giving credit where it''s due.

仅在内部运行的代码很少见。即使在服务器上运行的代码

也会被视为商业，因为如果你仔细阅读选项（B）

，你会发现它确实存在覆盖内部使用的一份副本

但与公众互动，如果该副本是商业广告：b）使用

仅在您的公司或组织。 。

你认为只在...内将涵盖运行与公众交互的

服务器的应用程序？想都别想。那不是b / b
，我几乎100％肯定。一个聪明的原告的律师将用b / b
串起你。 仅在...内意味着代码仅用于

基准测试，仅用于原型等，永远不会被商业化，绝不会与公众互动。而且由于这些许可证中有很多

是病毒式的，这意味着如果原型代码商业化，它将与版权许可证相悖，这是最好的

远离这种代码。至少那就是那些知道更好的大公司。


但是不要接受我的话......不是我的领域。


RL

Code that only runs inhouse is rare. Even code running on a server
will be deemed "commercial", because if you read the option (B)
carefully, you''ll see it does in fact cover a "one copy used in-house
but interacting with the public", if that copy is commercial: "b) use
the modified Package only within your corporation or organization. ".
Do you think "only within" will cover an application that runs a
server that interacts with the public? No way Jose. That is not
covered, I''m almost 100% sure. A clever plaintiff''s lawyer will
skewer you with that one. "only within" means code that only is for
benchmarking, only for prototypes, etc, that will never be
commercialized, will never interact with the public. And since a lot
of these licenses are "viral", meaning if prototype code is
commercialized it will run afoul of the copyright license, it''s best
to stay away from this kind of code. At least that''s what big
corporations who know better do.

But don''t take my word for it...not my field.

RL

这篇关于Re：艺术许可证（窃取许可证？） - 开源版权的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！