<http://www.zdnet.com/blog/howlett/kicking-off-the-new-year-at-oracle/3174>

On Jun 2, 4:12=A0am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/howlett/kicking-off-the-new-year-at-oracle/...=
>

It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
thing, isn't it?

In message
<9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17ee4@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Paul 
Cager wrote:

> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
> thing, isn't it?

It would if the code were worth copyrighting.

On 6/2/2011 2:11 AM, Paul Cager wrote:
> On Jun 2, 4:12 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand>  wrote:
>> <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/howlett/kicking-off-the-new-year-at-oracle/...>
>
> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
> thing, isn't it?

yep, looks like BSD...

it is actually a bit lame that the article is making a big scare-tactic 
like fuss over a BSD header-comment, which is damn near one of the most 
free options next to Public Domain...


now, more LOLZ would have been if someone had included the entirety of 
the GPLv3 in a programs' header comments...

and, yes, GPL would be a bit more legally encumbering than BSD is...

On Jun 2, 11:42=A0am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message
> <9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Paul
>
> Cager wrote:
> > It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
> > thing, isn't it?
>
> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.

You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
license.

In message
<5b0642c5-0634-4b8b-98fc-e9bfcbba1064@b42g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Paul 
Cager wrote:

> On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
>> In message
>> <9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Paul
>>
>> Cager wrote:
>> > It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
>> > thing, isn't it?
>>
>> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.
> 
> You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
> license.

What is the licence for?

On Jun 2, 1:08=A0pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message
> <5b0642c5-0634-4b8b-98fc-e9bfcbba1...@b42g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Paul
>
> Cager wrote:
> > On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
> >> In message
> >> <9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, P=
aul
>
> >> Cager wrote:
> >> > It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a go=
od
> >> > thing, isn't it?
>
> >> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.
>
> > You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
> > license.
>
> What is the licence for?

The license grants us permission to use the code. Without a license we
could be breaching copyright by redistributing it. But you're a free
software developer so I assume you knew that anyway. I'm not sure I
follow what point you are trying to make.

In article <is6v20$ib5$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro says...
> 
> <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/howlett/kicking-off-the-new-year-at-oracle/3174>

Ha. 30 lines of legal disclaimers, 5 lines of code.


-- 
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
sjsobol@JustThe.net

On 11-06-02 08:34 AM, Paul Cager wrote:
> On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> In message
>> <9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Paul
>>
>> Cager wrote:
>>> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
>>> thing, isn't it?
>>
>> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.
> 
> You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
> license.

Who's talking about a license? Oracle is attempting to copyright that
HelloWorld code. Strictly speaking they didn't even have to include that
"Copyright (c) 1995, 2008, Oracle..." bit, but since they did their
intentions are very clear. They also refer to themselves as the
copyright holder a little bit further down the blurb.

Everything about that boilerplate has to do with copyright.

AHS

On 6/2/2011 1:22 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> On 11-06-02 08:34 AM, Paul Cager wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
>> central.gen.new_zealand>  wrote:
>>> In message
>>> <9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Paul
>>>
>>> Cager wrote:
>>>> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
>>>> thing, isn't it?
>>>
>>> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.
>>
>> You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
>> license.
>
> Who's talking about a license? Oracle is attempting to copyright that
> HelloWorld code. Strictly speaking they didn't even have to include that
> "Copyright (c) 1995, 2008, Oracle..." bit, but since they did their
> intentions are very clear. They also refer to themselves as the
> copyright holder a little bit further down the blurb.
>
> Everything about that boilerplate has to do with copyright.
>

but, it is worth noting a few things:
the text appears to be a fairly standard 3-clause BSD-style license;
it is generally considered to be proper withing FOSS circles to put such 
a notice in *every* source file, such that it remains clear at all 
points how the code in question is licensed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license

note the section on the "New BSD License", which as may be noted, has 
very similar text and style (about the only differences I see is that 
Oracle inserted its name in the appropriate spots, labeled "<copyright 
holder>" in the aforementioned license).



generally, an absence of such a notice is (implicitly) meant to imply 
that it owned by the original owner, with all rights reserved except 
under the permission of the original author, until 80 years following 
said author's death (under which point it goes into public domain).

putting such a notice in a file thus states that a person is free to use 
said "hello world" program under the stated terms (which include copying 
and the creation of derivative works, ...). or effectively that the 
original author is waiving some of their legal rights.


yes, one can argue that it is a little silly to bother with this for a 
"hello world" program, but there is no obvious malice or ill-intention 
on Oracle's part for having done so.

On 11-06-02 06:21 PM, BGB wrote:
> On 6/2/2011 1:22 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> On 11-06-02 08:34 AM, Paul Cager wrote:
>>> On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
>>> central.gen.new_zealand>  wrote:
>>>> In message
>>>> <9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> Cager wrote:
>>>>> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
>>>>> thing, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.
>>>
>>> You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
>>> license.
>>
>> Who's talking about a license? Oracle is attempting to copyright that
>> HelloWorld code. Strictly speaking they didn't even have to include that
>> "Copyright (c) 1995, 2008, Oracle..." bit, but since they did their
>> intentions are very clear. They also refer to themselves as the
>> copyright holder a little bit further down the blurb.
>>
>> Everything about that boilerplate has to do with copyright.
>>
> 
> but, it is worth noting a few things:
> the text appears to be a fairly standard 3-clause BSD-style license;
> it is generally considered to be proper withing FOSS circles to put such
> a notice in *every* source file, such that it remains clear at all
> points how the code in question is licensed.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license
> 
> note the section on the "New BSD License", which as may be noted, has
> very similar text and style (about the only differences I see is that
> Oracle inserted its name in the appropriate spots, labeled "<copyright
> holder>" in the aforementioned license).
> 
> generally, an absence of such a notice is (implicitly) meant to imply
> that it owned by the original owner, with all rights reserved except
> under the permission of the original author, until 80 years following
> said author's death (under which point it goes into public domain).
> 
> putting such a notice in a file thus states that a person is free to use
> said "hello world" program under the stated terms (which include copying
> and the creation of derivative works, ...). or effectively that the
> original author is waiving some of their legal rights.
> 
> yes, one can argue that it is a little silly to bother with this for a
> "hello world" program, but there is no obvious malice or ill-intention
> on Oracle's part for having done so.
> 
Again, not discussing licensing yet, copyright applies to *original*
works. Regardless of the exact mechanics of a copyright coming into
force in various jurisdictions, Oracle can NOT copyright HelloWorld in
any language, not to mention a bunch of other obvious and much-used code.

I don't think they are malicious either. I simply think they have
ignorant lawyers and cowed developers.

AHS

On 6/2/2011 3:19 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> On 11-06-02 06:21 PM, BGB wrote:
>> On 6/2/2011 1:22 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>> On 11-06-02 08:34 AM, Paul Cager wrote:
>>>> On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
>>>> central.gen.new_zealand>   wrote:
>>>>> In message
>>>>> <9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> Cager wrote:
>>>>>> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
>>>>>> thing, isn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
>>>> license.
>>>
>>> Who's talking about a license? Oracle is attempting to copyright that
>>> HelloWorld code. Strictly speaking they didn't even have to include that
>>> "Copyright (c) 1995, 2008, Oracle..." bit, but since they did their
>>> intentions are very clear. They also refer to themselves as the
>>> copyright holder a little bit further down the blurb.
>>>
>>> Everything about that boilerplate has to do with copyright.
>>>
>>
>> but, it is worth noting a few things:
>> the text appears to be a fairly standard 3-clause BSD-style license;
>> it is generally considered to be proper withing FOSS circles to put such
>> a notice in *every* source file, such that it remains clear at all
>> points how the code in question is licensed.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license
>>
>> note the section on the "New BSD License", which as may be noted, has
>> very similar text and style (about the only differences I see is that
>> Oracle inserted its name in the appropriate spots, labeled "<copyright
>> holder>" in the aforementioned license).
>>
>> generally, an absence of such a notice is (implicitly) meant to imply
>> that it owned by the original owner, with all rights reserved except
>> under the permission of the original author, until 80 years following
>> said author's death (under which point it goes into public domain).
>>
>> putting such a notice in a file thus states that a person is free to use
>> said "hello world" program under the stated terms (which include copying
>> and the creation of derivative works, ...). or effectively that the
>> original author is waiving some of their legal rights.
>>
>> yes, one can argue that it is a little silly to bother with this for a
>> "hello world" program, but there is no obvious malice or ill-intention
>> on Oracle's part for having done so.
>>
> Again, not discussing licensing yet, copyright applies to *original*
> works. Regardless of the exact mechanics of a copyright coming into
> force in various jurisdictions, Oracle can NOT copyright HelloWorld in
> any language, not to mention a bunch of other obvious and much-used code.
>
> I don't think they are malicious either. I simply think they have
> ignorant lawyers and cowed developers.
>

actually, it depends on how one defines "original".

AFAIK the usual working definition of original is that it was originally 
written by a certain person.

given a person can easily write out a hello world program without 
needing to go any copy code from any other source, it classifies as 
original (as opposed to a derived work, which would incorporate code 
from another source, say if one copy/pasted the "Hello World" string 
from another such example).


hence, I can go type out, say (in my own original / creatively-designed 
HLL):
import bs.io;
void main(string[] args)
{
	printf("Hello World\n");
}

and, since I was the one to write it (say, as an example for this usenet 
post), legally I can claim copyright on it.

granted, this does not mean that it is "original" in the sense that it 
involves any non-trivial behavior or creative thought (but, AFAIK, this 
is not the sense of "original" that copyright deals with).


or such...

On 6/2/2011 3:42 PM, BGB wrote:
> On 6/2/2011 3:19 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> On 11-06-02 06:21 PM, BGB wrote:
>>> On 6/2/2011 1:22 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>>> On 11-06-02 08:34 AM, Paul Cager wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
>>>>> central.gen.new_zealand>   wrote:
>>>>>> In message
>>>>>> <9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cager wrote:
>>>>>>> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's 
>>>>>>> a good
>>>>>>> thing, isn't it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
>>>>> license.
>>>>
>>>> Who's talking about a license? Oracle is attempting to copyright that
>>>> HelloWorld code. Strictly speaking they didn't even have to include 
>>>> that
>>>> "Copyright (c) 1995, 2008, Oracle..." bit, but since they did their
>>>> intentions are very clear. They also refer to themselves as the
>>>> copyright holder a little bit further down the blurb.
>>>>
>>>> Everything about that boilerplate has to do with copyright.
>>>>
>>>
>>> but, it is worth noting a few things:
>>> the text appears to be a fairly standard 3-clause BSD-style license;
>>> it is generally considered to be proper withing FOSS circles to put 
>>> such
>>> a notice in *every* source file, such that it remains clear at all
>>> points how the code in question is licensed.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license
>>>
>>> note the section on the "New BSD License", which as may be noted, has
>>> very similar text and style (about the only differences I see is that
>>> Oracle inserted its name in the appropriate spots, labeled "<copyright
>>> holder>" in the aforementioned license).
>>>
>>> generally, an absence of such a notice is (implicitly) meant to imply
>>> that it owned by the original owner, with all rights reserved except
>>> under the permission of the original author, until 80 years following
>>> said author's death (under which point it goes into public domain).
>>>
>>> putting such a notice in a file thus states that a person is free to 
>>> use
>>> said "hello world" program under the stated terms (which include 
>>> copying
>>> and the creation of derivative works, ...). or effectively that the
>>> original author is waiving some of their legal rights.
>>>
>>> yes, one can argue that it is a little silly to bother with this for a
>>> "hello world" program, but there is no obvious malice or ill-intention
>>> on Oracle's part for having done so.
>>>
>> Again, not discussing licensing yet, copyright applies to *original*
>> works. Regardless of the exact mechanics of a copyright coming into
>> force in various jurisdictions, Oracle can NOT copyright HelloWorld in
>> any language, not to mention a bunch of other obvious and much-used 
>> code.
>>
>> I don't think they are malicious either. I simply think they have
>> ignorant lawyers and cowed developers.
>>
>
> actually, it depends on how one defines "original".
>
> AFAIK the usual working definition of original is that it was 
> originally written by a certain person.
>
> given a person can easily write out a hello world program without 
> needing to go any copy code from any other source, it classifies as 
> original (as opposed to a derived work, which would incorporate code 
> from another source, say if one copy/pasted the "Hello World" string 
> from another such example).
>

quick check revealed an error here:
the "Hello World" string can be classified as a "short phrase", and so 
apparently, can't itself be held under copyright. this means that the 
"Hello World" program would remain as an original work even with copying 
the "Hello World" string from another program.


>
> hence, I can go type out, say (in my own original / 
> creatively-designed HLL):
> import bs.io;
> void main(string[] args)
> {
>     printf("Hello World\n");
> }
>
> and, since I was the one to write it (say, as an example for this 
> usenet post), legally I can claim copyright on it.
>
> granted, this does not mean that it is "original" in the sense that it 
> involves any non-trivial behavior or creative thought (but, AFAIK, 
> this is not the sense of "original" that copyright deals with).
>

hmm... but there is possibly the matter of the total amount of content...
it may be infact too short to really be subject to copyright, which I 
had not previously considered...

On 11-06-02 07:42 PM, BGB wrote:
> On 6/2/2011 3:19 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> On 11-06-02 06:21 PM, BGB wrote:
>>> On 6/2/2011 1:22 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>>> On 11-06-02 08:34 AM, Paul Cager wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
>>>>> central.gen.new_zealand>   wrote:
>>>>>> In message
>>>>>> <9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cager wrote:
>>>>>>> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a
>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>> thing, isn't it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
>>>>> license.
>>>>
>>>> Who's talking about a license? Oracle is attempting to copyright that
>>>> HelloWorld code. Strictly speaking they didn't even have to include
>>>> that
>>>> "Copyright (c) 1995, 2008, Oracle..." bit, but since they did their
>>>> intentions are very clear. They also refer to themselves as the
>>>> copyright holder a little bit further down the blurb.
>>>>
>>>> Everything about that boilerplate has to do with copyright.
>>>>
>>>
>>> but, it is worth noting a few things:
>>> the text appears to be a fairly standard 3-clause BSD-style license;
>>> it is generally considered to be proper withing FOSS circles to put such
>>> a notice in *every* source file, such that it remains clear at all
>>> points how the code in question is licensed.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license
>>>
>>> note the section on the "New BSD License", which as may be noted, has
>>> very similar text and style (about the only differences I see is that
>>> Oracle inserted its name in the appropriate spots, labeled "<copyright
>>> holder>" in the aforementioned license).
>>>
>>> generally, an absence of such a notice is (implicitly) meant to imply
>>> that it owned by the original owner, with all rights reserved except
>>> under the permission of the original author, until 80 years following
>>> said author's death (under which point it goes into public domain).
>>>
>>> putting such a notice in a file thus states that a person is free to use
>>> said "hello world" program under the stated terms (which include copying
>>> and the creation of derivative works, ...). or effectively that the
>>> original author is waiving some of their legal rights.
>>>
>>> yes, one can argue that it is a little silly to bother with this for a
>>> "hello world" program, but there is no obvious malice or ill-intention
>>> on Oracle's part for having done so.
>>>
>> Again, not discussing licensing yet, copyright applies to *original*
>> works. Regardless of the exact mechanics of a copyright coming into
>> force in various jurisdictions, Oracle can NOT copyright HelloWorld in
>> any language, not to mention a bunch of other obvious and much-used code.
>>
>> I don't think they are malicious either. I simply think they have
>> ignorant lawyers and cowed developers.
>>
> 
> actually, it depends on how one defines "original".
> 
> AFAIK the usual working definition of original is that it was originally
> written by a certain person.
> 
> given a person can easily write out a hello world program without
> needing to go any copy code from any other source, it classifies as
> original (as opposed to a derived work, which would incorporate code
> from another source, say if one copy/pasted the "Hello World" string
> from another such example).
[ SNIP ]

"Original" for copyright means independent creative effort. There is
also, as you alluded to in another reply, a test of substantiality. The
Oracle "HelloWorld" snippet fails in its entirety for the substantiality
test.

Copying simply means copying. Keying in a psvm HelloWorld mantra from
memory is still copying, because precisely 99.99999 percent of all Java
developers have seen an example of it.

AHS

On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:19:18 -0300, Arved Sandstrom
<asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:

>I simply think they have
>ignorant lawyers and cowed developers.
Ignorant lawyers, and developers who can recognise stupidity and make
sure that the stupidity comes to the attention of someone who can beat
their immediate boss over the head.  "But boss, we were only doing
what the lawyers told us to do."

Code monkeys can be subversive.  Sometimes they just look cowed.

rossum

On Jun 2, 9:22=A0pm, Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3min...@eastlink.ca>
wrote:
> On 11-06-02 08:34 AM, Paul Cager wrote:
>
> > On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, P=
aul
>
> >> Cager wrote:
> >>> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a goo=
d
> >>> thing, isn't it?
>
> >> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.
>
> > You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
> > license.
>
> Who's talking about a license? Oracle is attempting to copyright that
> HelloWorld code.

No, I'm afraid that's not true. The first couple of lines define the
copyright _holders_, but the rest of it is the _license_ (a BSD
license in this case).

The distinction is important. This isn't a case of Oracle trying to
"claim" something as their own and prevent others using it; rather
Oracle are explicitly giving us permission to use their work. Now for
a 5 line "Hello World" program it probably doesn't make much
_practical_ difference as no-one's going to complain if you copy it
without permission (even assuming it wasn't classed as a derived
work). But for larger bodies of code (such as the JDK) having that
license boiler plate is very significant; without a Free license
projects such as OpenJDK would not be possible.

Much as I enjoy Oracle-bashing it seems quite wrong to portray
granting a Free software license as something bad.

Tongue-in-cheek definitions:
Copyright:   I wrote this code so I'm the only one who can use it. You
can write your own version, but don't copy mine.
Copyright + License:     I wrote this code but you can use it as well
(subject to terms & conditions...).
Software Patent:    I don't care who wrote this code; just send me the
money every time you use it.

On 06/02/2011 06:56 PM, BGB wrote:
> the "Hello World" string can be classified as a "short phrase", and so
> apparently, can't itself be held under copyright. this means that the
> "Hello World" program would remain as an original work even with copying
> the "Hello World" string from another program.

That is not a tenant that exists in law, if I recall my legal history 
correctly. I can't find the case right now, but the US Supreme Court 
basically said there is no legal minimum amount that has to be quoted to 
cause a violation of copyright.

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not 
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

In message <5ebf790e-1d47-409f-9b00-
dc2a890b5bcf@l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, Paul Cager wrote:

> On Jun 2, 1:08 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
>> In message
>> <5b0642c5-0634-4b8b-98fc-e9bfcbba1...@b42g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Paul
>>
>> Cager wrote:
>> > On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
>> > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>
>> >> In message
>> >> <9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> Paul
>>
>> >> Cager wrote:
>> >> > It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a
>> >> > good thing, isn't it?
>>
>> >> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.
>>
>> > You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
>> > license.
>>
>> What is the licence for?
> 
> The license grants us permission to use the code. Without a license we
> could be breaching copyright by redistributing it.

You mean, the way you could be “breaching copyright” by “redistributing” 
your USENET posting containing quotations of my words?

In message
<f6680b77-593e-47a2-a395-9f5916687899@x6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Paul 
Cager wrote:

> This isn't a case of Oracle trying to "claim" something as their own and
> prevent others using it;

Who said it was, strawman-spouter?

On 6/2/2011 7:21 PM, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
> On 06/02/2011 06:56 PM, BGB wrote:
>> the "Hello World" string can be classified as a "short phrase", and so
>> apparently, can't itself be held under copyright. this means that the
>> "Hello World" program would remain as an original work even with copying
>> the "Hello World" string from another program.
>
> That is not a tenant that exists in law, if I recall my legal history
> correctly. I can't find the case right now, but the US Supreme Court
> basically said there is no legal minimum amount that has to be quoted to
> cause a violation of copyright.
>

that is what I thought previously, however, looking it up apparently has 
a quote from "US Copyright Office Circular 14" which basically says that 
copyright can't be applied to titles or short phrases, as these are not 
in themselves subject to copyright.

this would seem to imply that there is *some* lower limit, and hence 
copyright may require something larger than, say, "Hello World\n".


it is possible that a "quote" would be, by definition, larger than a 
"short phrase" (which would presumably be limited to only a few words?).


or such...

On 6/2/2011 8:10 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<5ebf790e-1d47-409f-9b00-
> dc2a890b5bcf@l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, Paul Cager wrote:
>
>> On Jun 2, 1:08 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
>> central.gen.new_zealand>  wrote:
>>
>>> In message
>>> <5b0642c5-0634-4b8b-98fc-e9bfcbba1...@b42g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Paul
>>>
>>> Cager wrote:
>>>> On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
>>>> central.gen.new_zealand>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In message
>>>>> <9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> Paul
>>>
>>>>> Cager wrote:
>>>>>> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a
>>>>>> good thing, isn't it?
>>>
>>>>> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.
>>>
>>>> You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
>>>> license.
>>>
>>> What is the licence for?
>>
>> The license grants us permission to use the code. Without a license we
>> could be breaching copyright by redistributing it.
>
> You mean, the way you could be “breaching copyright” by “redistributing”
> your USENET posting containing quotations of my words?

possibly, except that the nature of Usenet itself is itself for public 
communicaton and conversation, and so it would be a little harder to 
make the case that someone was breaching copyright simply by using the 
medium for its intended purpose...

granted, maybe to be really "proper" in a legal sense, Usenet posters 
would have to agree to a legal agreement to effectively waive personal 
copyright ownership over the messages they post on Usenet, with some 
additional clauses/special cases to deal with all the edge cases, such 
as when posting a message containing content from a 3rd party, ...

In message <is9p72$hqa$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote:

> On 6/2/2011 8:10 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message<5ebf790e-1d47-409f-9b00-
>> dc2a890b5bcf@l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, Paul Cager wrote:
>>
>>> The license grants us permission to use the code. Without a license we
>>> could be breaching copyright by redistributing it.
>>
>> You mean, the way you could be “breaching copyright” by “redistributing”
>> your USENET posting containing quotations of my words?
> 
> possibly, except that the nature of Usenet itself is itself for public
> communicaton and conversation ...

Same reasoning applies to the entire Internet, on which all kinds software 
is made available.

In message <is8v1m$1a2$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote:

> yes, one can argue that it is a little silly to bother with this for a
> "hello world" program, but there is no obvious malice or ill-intention
> on Oracle's part for having done so.

Not that anyone suggested there was.

In message <EPUFp.26956$ar1.21313@newsfe08.iad>, Arved Sandstrom wrote:

> "Original" for copyright means independent creative effort.

Does that mean that databases can’t be copyrighted?

On 06/02/2011 11:10 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> You mean, the way you could be “breaching copyright” by “redistributing”
> your USENET posting containing quotations of my words?

Nope, you agreed to let us do that. It's all there in the fine print of 
the ToS for your ISP.

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not 
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

In message <is94le$cq8$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote:

> quick check revealed an error here:
> the "Hello World" string can be classified as a "short phrase", and so
> apparently, can't itself be held under copyright. this means that the
> "Hello World" program would remain as an original work even with copying
> the "Hello World" string from another program.

And the award for most obsessive legal dissection of a five-line program 
goes to...

In message <isa07a$gfs$1@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote:

> On 06/02/2011 11:10 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> You mean, the way you could be “breaching copyright” by “redistributing”
>> your USENET posting containing quotations of my words?
> 
> Nope, you agreed to let us do that. It's all there in the fine print of
> the ToS for your ISP.

Feel free to find any evidence on my ISP’s website that it even knows it 
runs a USENET server.

On 6/2/2011 10:07 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<EPUFp.26956$ar1.21313@newsfe08.iad>, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>
>> "Original" for copyright means independent creative effort.
>
> Does that mean that databases can’t be copyrighted?

the stuff I went and read on the matter mostly defined the "original" in 
the copyright sense in terms of "the original concrete expression".


this seems to partly exclude the creative aspect, and does include many 
of the traditional things which *are* copyrighted:
aggregates of various files or data;
random images or recordings of various things;
....


however, apparently copyright does not cover "tables of numbers or other 
factual data", which could, possibly, be taken to imply an inability to 
copyright a database...

but, taken to its logical extreme, this would effectively undermine the 
ability to apply copyright to data in the first place, since one "could" 
attempt to apply such an interpretation to data as a whole ("every file 
is just a big table of numbers in the range of 0 to 255...").


which, of course, would not likely hold water in court...

"well, these DVD ISOs were just simply tables of numbers..." and "I 
didn't actually distribute the files, they just happened to sort of leak 
out and rain down on these various computers in a sort of bit-torrent...".

as the jury just stands there being like "right...".

On 11-06-02 09:50 PM, Paul Cager wrote:
> On Jun 2, 9:22 pm, Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3min...@eastlink.ca>
> wrote:
>> On 11-06-02 08:34 AM, Paul Cager wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
>>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>>> In message
>>>> <9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Paul
>>
>>>> Cager wrote:
>>>>> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
>>>>> thing, isn't it?
>>
>>>> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.
>>
>>> You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
>>> license.
>>
>> Who's talking about a license? Oracle is attempting to copyright that
>> HelloWorld code.
> 
> No, I'm afraid that's not true. The first couple of lines define the
> copyright _holders_, but the rest of it is the _license_ (a BSD
> license in this case).
> 
> The distinction is important. This isn't a case of Oracle trying to
> "claim" something as their own and prevent others using it; rather
> Oracle are explicitly giving us permission to use their work. Now for
> a 5 line "Hello World" program it probably doesn't make much
> _practical_ difference as no-one's going to complain if you copy it
> without permission (even assuming it wasn't classed as a derived
> work). But for larger bodies of code (such as the JDK) having that
> license boiler plate is very significant; without a Free license
> projects such as OpenJDK would not be possible.
> 
> Much as I enjoy Oracle-bashing it seems quite wrong to portray
> granting a Free software license as something bad.
> 
> Tongue-in-cheek definitions:
> Copyright:   I wrote this code so I'm the only one who can use it. You
> can write your own version, but don't copy mine.
> Copyright + License:     I wrote this code but you can use it as well
> (subject to terms & conditions...).
> Software Patent:    I don't care who wrote this code; just send me the
> money every time you use it.

OK, fair enough. I understand the distinction, it's just that it's
irritating me enormously to see anyone even bothering to discuss the
license part. There is no license if there is no copyright, and for this
example (although there are many others out there) NO copyright exists.

Oracle *copied* that code - they have no copyright. They can't license
that software because they don't have copyright. It's not up to them to
"explicitly give us permission to use their work", because in this case
it's not their bloody work. There is boilerplate there that looks like
BSD license fluff, but it's not a license because nothing exists to be
licensed.

This is not about Oracle bashing at all, although they clearly have some
stupid lawyers and fearful developers (*somebody* had to meekly put that
boilerplate in, and it wasn't a lawyer). This is about *us* being aware
of what can be copyrighted, licensed and patented.

AHS

On Jun 3, 10:56=A0am, Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3min...@eastlink.ca>
wrote:
> OK, fair enough. I understand the distinction, it's just that it's
> irritating me enormously to see anyone even bothering to discuss the
> license part.

I can understand your irritation, and I didn't intend to add to it. I
just like the idea of Free Software and I sometimes get carried away.

I agree that adding that notice to a Hello World program seems
ridiculous and I probably wouldn't have bothered with it myself. But
that type of notice (or its absence) is very important in Free
Software; misunderstandings about it in a "Hello World" program can
lead to real problems when developing "real" software.

Think of my position like this. Suppose someone posts a Hello World
program that does:

    System.out.println(new String("Hello World"));

That spurious "new String()" might be considered totally harmless in a
Hello World program, but you'd still probably want to call attention
to it, so it doesn't lead to bad habits in real programs.

> There is no license if there is no copyright, and for this
> example (although there are many others out there) NO copyright exists.

Unfortunately unless something is in the public domain (which has its
own set of problems) copyright exists even if the author doesn't want
it ("copyright arises upon fixation"). That's why the safest route is
usually to grant a license.

> Oracle *copied* that code - they have no copyright. They can't license
> that software because they don't have copyright. It's not up to them to
> "explicitly give us permission to use their work", because in this case
> it's not their bloody work.

Certainly no argument there - if they copied it then it's not theirs
to license.

On 06/03/2011 03:49 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<isa07a$gfs$1@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>
>> On 06/02/2011 11:10 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> You mean, the way you could be “breaching copyright” by “redistributing”
>>> your USENET posting containing quotations of my words?
>>
>> Nope, you agreed to let us do that. It's all there in the fine print of
>> the ToS for your ISP.
>
> Feel free to find any evidence on my ISP’s website that it even knows it
> runs a USENET server.

s/ISP/Usenet provider/, then.

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not 
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

On 03/06/2011 05:10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro allegedly wrote:
> In message
> <f6680b77-593e-47a2-a395-9f5916687899@x6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Paul 
> Cager wrote:
> 
>> This isn't a case of Oracle trying to "claim" something as their own and
>> prevent others using it;
> 
> Who said it was, strawman-spouter?

Arved did, you fucking knucklehead. Try at least to feign having read
your own trolls.

-- 
DF.
Determinism trumps correctness.

In message
<40212829-c02a-41ac-a2af-2b4cb3db9448@n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, Paul 
Cager wrote:

> I agree that adding that notice to a Hello World program seems
> ridiculous and I probably wouldn't have bothered with it myself. But
> that type of notice (or its absence) is very important in Free
> Software ...

Only up (down) to a point. As I understand it, even the FSF themselves, for 
example, don’t worry about you accepting their contributor agreement before 
sending them a patch, unless the amount of code concerned gets up to some 
significant size.

In message <isatsv$ok9$2@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote:

> On 06/03/2011 03:49 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message<isa07a$gfs$1@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/02/2011 11:10 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> You mean, the way you could be “breaching copyright” by
>>>> “redistributing” your USENET posting containing quotations of my words?
>>>
>>> Nope, you agreed to let us do that. It's all there in the fine print of
>>> the ToS for your ISP.
>>
>> Feel free to find any evidence on my ISP’s website that it even knows it
>> runs a USENET server.
> 
> s/ISP/Usenet provider/, then.

Go on then, quote me the terms of use of my USENET provider that takes away 
my copyright on my own words.

On 06/03/2011 08:28 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<isatsv$ok9$2@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>
>> On 06/03/2011 03:49 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message<isa07a$gfs$1@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/02/2011 11:10 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You mean, the way you could be “breaching copyright” by
>>>>> “redistributing” your USENET posting containing quotations of my words?
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you agreed to let us do that. It's all there in the fine print of
>>>> the ToS for your ISP.
>>>
>>> Feel free to find any evidence on my ISP’s website that it even knows it
>>> runs a USENET server.
>>
>> s/ISP/Usenet provider/, then.
>
> Go on then, quote me the terms of use of my USENET provider that takes away
> my copyright on my own words.

It doesn't take away your copyright. It just requires you to grant them 
an irrevocable, perpetual, royalty-free license to your words, and, if I 
recall my legal stuff correctly, furthermore allows them to relicense it 
to other people.

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not 
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

In message <isckrq$as7$2@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote:

> On 06/03/2011 08:28 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message<isatsv$ok9$2@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/03/2011 03:49 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message<isa07a$gfs$1@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06/02/2011 11:10 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean, the way you could be “breaching copyright” by
>>>>>> “redistributing” your USENET posting containing quotations of my
>>>>>> words?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, you agreed to let us do that. It's all there in the fine print
>>>>> of the ToS for your ISP.
>>>>
>>>> Feel free to find any evidence on my ISP’s website that it even knows
>>>> it runs a USENET server.
>>>
>>> s/ISP/Usenet provider/, then.
>>
>> Go on then, quote me the terms of use of my USENET provider that takes
>> away my copyright on my own words.
> 
> It doesn't take away your copyright. It just requires you to grant them
> an irrevocable, perpetual, royalty-free license to your words, and, if I
> recall my legal stuff correctly, furthermore allows them to relicense it
> to other people.

So where does it say that?