How to Deal With Stolen Code? 799
greenrom writes "I work for a small company as a software developer. While investigating a bug in one of our products, I found source code on a website that was nearly identical to code used in our product. Even the comments were the same. It's obvious that a developer at our company found some useful code on the web and copied it. The original author didn't attach any particular license to the code. It's just 200 lines of code the author posted in a forum. Is it legitimate to use source code that's publicly available but doesn't fall under any particular license? If not, what's the best way to deal with this kind of situation? Since I'm now the only person working on this code, there's no practical way to report the situation confidentially. I'm new to the company, and the developer who copied the code is the project lead. Reporting him to management doesn't seem like a good career move. I could rewrite the copied code without reporting him, but since the product is very close to release it would be difficult to make a significant change without providing some justification."
I can help (Score:5, Funny)
Well... (Score:5, Informative)
You could ask politely (Score:5, Informative)
If your company want to be completely honest and above-board and legal, it must ask if it's okay to use the code. If the author says no or demand$ too much, you must not use it.
Unless you are fortunate enough to get a fast "sure, go ahead and use it" you will miss your deadline. Sometimes a little cash - maybe as little as the amount of man-hours it would take you to rewrite and test it - will be enough to expedite getting permission.
By the way, for all you know, the tech lead did ask permission, or the tech lead knows the code is already been dedicated to the public domain.
If it were me, I'd talk to the tech lead. If the tech lead doesn't have permission already and isn't willing to go to management and do The Right Thing (TM), I'd start circulating your resume and talk to management about it. When you do talk to management, present them with options that are likely to 1) be acceptable to management and 2) get the product out the door as soon as possible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you are fortunate enough to figure out who REALLY wrote that code in the first place...... You might have 10,000th copy of it and no idea whom to ask for permission.
It's common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Moreover in my professional career as a programmer I ran into several stumbling blocks where I couldn't figure something out. I'd google for code, or use helper sites like Tek-Tips where people could either correct my code or provide me new code.
I'm paid for results, not for originality. If people provide code on the web as tutorial purposes or just as a friendly piece of help then I would be going against my job to not use it.
Moreover, I ask: If you bought a book on, say, ASP and it had sample code that did exactly what you wanted, would you then rewrite that code so it was not what was in the book? Of course you wouldn't!
Re:It's common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
If you buy a book on ASP, generally the sample code in there has a license that allows everybody (or at least people who bought the book) to use the code in any way they want. The same can't be said for virtually any code you find out on the web. The default for any new work is for it to be copyrighted and with no license. Unless your use of the copyrighted material falls under Fair Use, you're not allowed to use it; copying the entirety of a code snippet for use in a commercial application is not Fair Use.
You'll probably never get in trouble for doing this, because probably most people (90%+) would say their posts are in the public domain if asked about it -- but until you've asked them, you have to assume that it's "look but don't touch".
Re:It's common sense (Score:4, Informative)
Numerical Recipes [nr.com] (in C, C++, etc), has a restrictive license [nr.com] that only allows you to use the code for personal non-commercial uses. There doesn't seem to be any provision for using those samples in commercial products.
Re:It's common sense (Score:5, Informative)
Yes! Now you're catching on! There *is* an implicit Copyright (at least in the United States) on *everything*. Unless the author has agreed to some other license, you need to ask their permission to reproduce it in its entirety (or any use that goes beyond "Fair Use"). Some sites have blanket licenses to everything posted on them that implicitly assigns copyrights of all contributions-- Wikipedia, for example. But if the site hasn't made such arrangements, and the author hasn't made such arrangements, and the "borrower" hasn't made such arrangements, Copyright has been violated.
As for books, some books grant a license for all sample code in the book to be used by the purchaser of the book in any way. Some don't (Numerical Recipies is the most commonly cited example-- it's an entire book of stuff you're not allowed to use. It's a very annoying book that way, needless to say).
It sounds like you seriously need to learn a little bit about Copyrights before you get yourself and your employer in serious trouble.
Small potatoes (Score:4, Insightful)
Dunno; good question. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, that's not the law. I believe that the code an author publishes on an open forum is copyrighted by the author by default.
Me; I'd probably drop the guy a brief informal note asking permission to reuse the code and see what he does. More often than not if he's like me he'll probably say "sure, I don't mind."
But how do you know (Score:5, Insightful)
Spilling the beans (Score:4, Informative)
Don't worry about the fact that the forum post was 4 months before you guys even started work on your project. In your haste to protect your companies IP you didn't realize you were the ones doing the copying.
Re:Spilling the beans (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you take a hit for looking incompetent. No one in their right mind wants to trust mission critical stuff to a guy that's proven they're sloppy. Playing "stupid" as you put it makes you look stupid. Plus it's gutless. Think about this: Who wants to promote someone that's gutless and stupid? No. With this kind of thing you either decide to front up with what you've found (and be discrete about it) or discuss it with no one (much less post on
Also if you approach the company don't jump to any conclusions. Just present the facts. For all you know someone at your company asked permission from the author (and though unlikely since there was no attribution, you shouldn't presume the coder's guilt). If you're using a code repository correctly it shouldn't be hard to track down the developer that wrote the code and enquire about it. Make sure you report the problem to the correct person if your company has formal reporting guidelines, but do so informally if possible at first. How things proceed from there is up to your company as laid out by their policies.
I'm guessing that if you're asking on
If the code's easy to replace (and most 200 line snippets posted on a forum are), there shouldn't be an issue getting someone to write the replacement without seeing the original, the work to do so is not a huge liability to the company. However if your company has publicly released the code in one of their products it could be a much bigger issue because it potentially exposes the company to liability.
Re:Spilling the beans (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't sweat it (Score:5, Insightful)
Legally, it's not necessarily safe to copy long snippets from forums, but from practical and social points of view, I think this is much ado about nothing.
Use it (Score:5, Insightful)
Since this specific case apparently bothers you, I think you should try to contact the author through some back-channel and get an explicit okay to use it. But I bet more than likely your request will be ignored or you'll get a "why the fsck are you asking such a dumb thing?" That's generally how I reply when someone asks me about code I've posted.
Comment it with the URL (Score:4, Insightful)
If the code explicitly has a license attached to it I follow that of course. But I've not had to do that yet. I don't pull code from other project bases unless it's a library or such (in which case I follow the license). Only code that is meant to be viewed and used (such as forums/tutorials).
Appropriate Quote (Score:5, Funny)
I wouldn't worry. (Score:4, Insightful)
If the person posted code on a forum then normally they do so expecting people to use it. Hense Posting it on a forum. Most forums go like this.
First Post
How do I do this?
There is a reply
Try this code.
They usually replay with two options
Sorry it didn't work or It worked thanks.
You are probably just out of college were even looking at someone elses code is considered a great moral sin against humanity, where just the though of this could bar you away from higher education forcing you to live your life without being able to obtain a higher degree. In business if it works they use it even if it is a copy and paist. If it was something more problematic like say Using the source from an other companies code who had a strong license on it... Or using GPL code for non GPL reasons then there would be some consern. But for posting giving help to some one who wants to know how to do something it is basicly a non-issue.
Quick Points (Score:5, Informative)
1. The original write owns the copyright to the code.
2. By posting it to the BB, he might have agreed to license it under whatever terms by which the board operates. This might mean you have some license to use it (either implied or actual).
3. The code copied by the developer might not be enough of the work as a whole to considered infringement.
4. One test for determining whether computer code infringes copyright, in the USA at least, is the classic, yet ambiguous "abstraction, filtration, comparison" test. (If the copying was complete with comments, then that's not so good for the copier, but if the code accomplishes a trivial function, then not so much.)
5. Speaking generally, it's important to be on the lookout for situations like this. For instance, if code is copied from an open-source project, then significant consequences can follow (c.f. the Asus story below this one.)
6. If you are concerned, talk with your company's legal counsel.
Hmm, Let's see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me think about this for a minute...
IANAL (Score:5, Funny)
Use your head. (Score:5, Insightful)
Forums can be kind of a greyer area. I once had a guy who was maintaining a system I wrote put a decent chunk of my code in a forum; source code, mind you, not just a script. It was a whole program, and while I never sold that particular piece to do anything by itself, it was a part of a product I did make a decent bit of money on, and a pretty clear-cut breach of my IP for some joker to just post it (they'd signed a contract dealing with redistribution, so it was in writing).
I called them, they apologized, disciplined the guy, and hired me to do the change he'd been trying to do (he'd posted the code trying to get someone to tell him what it did), and paid me at a higher rate. I let it slide because it wasn't a big deal (non-critical code), and they dealt with it to my satisfaction.
If, at some later date, I'd found that code verbatim in someone else's system, I might have mentioned it to them, as an aside, but I wouldn't have tried to claim damages or make them remove it. At that point it is WAY too difficult to trace provenance, and hard to prove any sort of knowing violation. It had been released, I'd taken it up from the people who released it, it was done.
In short: If someone releases code with no license attached and you use it and it turns out later it was licensed you're going to have to deal with the consequences of that. If it turns out it wasn't licensed (or was BSD licensed) you're in the clear, even if it was a case like mine where the code was released by a party that wasn't authorized to release it.
The internet is a nice tool to keep from re-inventing the wheel, but if you take anything more than a little subroutine, you better know what rights you have with regards to it because it can seriously bite you in the ass.
An interesting question (Score:3, Insightful)
(+ 1 1)
could not be reasonably subject to copyright (IMHO, IANAL, etc.) IIRC there is some rule about originality that this would not satisfy. OK, what about:
;Code to print out "hello world"
(defun hello-world () (format t "hello world"))
Exceedingly simple, entirely trivial, and arguably not creative or original, but more gray than the first example.
What about:
;Code to add two numbers and multiply by a third number
(defun calc-with-three-numbers (a b c) (* (+ a b) c))
Still trivial, but you get the idea - at what point do we cross the line into copyrightable material?
Also, let's assume (for the sake of argument) the last example above is copyrightable. If someone else independently working on the same problem does:
;(x+y)*z
(defun f1 (x y z) (* (+ x y) z))
Would that constitute a copyright violation of the above formula? They do precisely the same thing using exactly the same algorithm, but look very different. Is the second in violation of copyright of the first?
In practice, some problems have an "optimal" solution that most skilled programmers will eventually converge on (if they are good at their jobs). To my mind this might end with comments being (sometimes) copyrightable and code being defined as a mathematical algorithm, which (IMHO) is much closer to the true situation. But I don't know what the legal definitions are for this issue - anybody know if Groklaw has dug up any related material?
You already know the answer (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm new to the company, and the developer who copied the code is the project lead.
You married? Got any kids? A mortgage?
If the answer to any of the above is yes, then shut the hell up about it and get on with your day.
If the answer to all of the above is no and you're in the mood for an ethics experiment - mention it to someone. Have your resume ready first. You're about to learn what the business world is really like.
Re:You already know the answer (Score:5, Interesting)
Or, depending on how the project lead is viewed in the company, this could be the fastest promotion you'll ever get.
Before you talk to anyone about this, do some discrete research about who might be sympathetic to your situation, who the lead's enemies are and think about just how much politics you want to get involved in
Re:You already know the answer (Score:4, Insightful)
I once read a comment on
I don't know the exact extent of the problem here but that would mean that anybody with a family could do unethical, maybe even illegal, things and use the excuse, "I have to do it to support my family." "They won't survive if I don't do the bad things my companies want because a McJob won't cut it."
The business world probably is like that. That doesn't mean you should be.
I wonder if this is a cognitive dissonance.
Ethical job and family support are both needed but can't be at the same time.
The remedy is to make one more important than the other.
The other then doesn't exist in this comparison.
Talk to the guy who copied it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hopefully you're working for a decent guy, and you can just say "Hey, dude, I was researching this bug, and in the process, found this code on this forum. You think we should be worried about copyright issues?"
He may, like several slashdotters in this thread, be completely unaware of the fact that code is automatically copyrighted in the US.
He may have been aware, but just lazy, and say "Yeah, we should do something about that".
He may say "Who cares? No one will ever find out!". In that case, *then* you may consider going over his head and raising the issue with his superiors.
If he's a decent guy at all, he'll appreciate your coming to him politely with your concerns. But even if he's the type of vindictive halfwit likely to take offense at your discovery, he'd probably be hard pressed to come up with an excuse for taking action against you. And really, if you're working for someone like that, you should strongly consider looking for a new position elsewhere.
Good to hear (Score:4, Funny)
Guilty until proven innocent (Score:4, Insightful)
So let's be honest, this is a pretty common occurrence. Often times when people post code online in a forum, it's expected by the author that people will lift the code... in fact, that's why it's being posted to the forum! I understand that without an explicit license or authorization from the original author that this is not legal... good, fine, whatever - not trying to debate the legalities of it.
What bothers me here is that the original poster seems to be implying some act of malice on the part of his co-worker. Now, I don't know the full details of the situation, maybe there are valid reasons why he would feel that way. But he didn't even hint at that in his question to Slashdot but does mention his inclination to report him to managment. Really?? I mean... REALLY??? Could this not be an honest mistake stemming from a misunderstanding of the law? Perhaps the co-worker had private exchanges with the code author regarding using the code. Should portraying your co-worker as a criminal to management really even be considered as your first course of action?
I'll let others give their suggestions on how to deal with the situation, but the way the co-worker was portrayed here just rubbed me wrong. I've seen this same thing plenty of times, and it's never been anything but an innocent mistake... both on the part of the person copying and the person posting the code, because in my personal experiences the poster's intent was to make the code freely available but lacking knowledge of copyright law prevented them from expressly stating so in the forum. I'm guessing there's a good chance it can be resolved fairly easily without pissing anyone off or getting anyone fired.
It is all about "intent." (Score:3, Interesting)
Question of Provenance (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a question of provenance of the code. Just because you found it on some web site doesn't mean THEY didn't copy it from somewhere else and remove the copyright notices - it happens. It's also possible that both got if from a public domain source (there isn't that much code in the public domain, but there is some). However, I strongly suggest you report it to your superiors within the company. If they decide not to do anything about it then don't worry.
Copyright infringement is one of those things where ignorance is not bliss. The longer it goes on, the higher your company's potential liability.
Summary (Score:4, Interesting)
Camp A people would fire someone for taking the time to worry about this because it happens all the time and you're never going to get caught, and the original author of the code probably meant it to be public anyway, even though its illegal.
Camp B people would fire someone for NOT taking the time to worry about this because its illegal, regardless of intent of the original author and if it came to light it would expose the company to bad press and possibly litigation.
Camp C people have no earthly clue how copyright law actually works and are speaking out of their collective asses. Sadly, these people would most likely reason along the same lines as Camp A out of ignorance rather than malice and simply behave the same way with the exception that they don't realize they're breaking the law.
The original poster can certainly decide what kind of person he is (probably B since he asked the question in the first place) and can probably make a guess about what kind of people his employers are (I'm guessing A, again since he had to ask). Then you have to decide what is more important, your job or your ethics. It is a slippery slope when you first start copying code. I had a friend who copied code once. Now he professionally eats babies. True story.
The fact is that all the commonsense notions about how copyright law works or should work don't take into account that copyright law is not written by individuals, but largely by companies like Disney and Warner Brothers (among others), companies that have a vested interest in maintaining control over a certain mouse and rabbit (among others), both of whom would now long since be in the public domain if not for the endless [wikipedia.org] succession [wikipedia.org] of copyright extensions lobbied for by said corporations. Originally (well, since 1909) copyright expired after 28 years, or 56 if you decided to renew it. And this was a copyright you had to explicitly register. In 1976, copyright became automatic and consisted of life plus 50 years after the authors death (or a static 75 years for 'work for hire'). In 1998 it became life + 70 and either 120 years after creation, or 95 years after publication, whichever is sooner. Its interesting to note the effect on Mickey Mouse. Created in 1928, MM would have left copyrighted status (though still been covered under trademark restrictions) in 1984. Because of the 1976 act, that was pushed to 2003. The 1998 act pushed that back to 2023 at the earliest. So look for another copyright law in 2018 or so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Regarding legality (Score:4, Informative)
IANAL; YMMV.
Incorrect title. Plagiarized code, not stolen... (Score:4, Interesting)
Was the bug within the copied code? Sometimes copyright isn't an issue with copied code. Its product quality.
The three instances of copied code I've found in our commercial product caused major headaches because the code got past QA and failed in the field. It didn't scale, had timing issues, etc.
In all three cases when I confronted the programmers they could not explain how "their" code worked. In all three cases I didn't have them fired. I made them fix it and apologize to the boss (who had to apologize to our customers).
As a result, I now have two decent programmers who write their own code. They ask for help when its needed instead of copying off of the internet.
Enjoy,
context matters (Score:3, Insightful)
You should probably just mention it to him and offer to rewrite it. It would be wise to not act in an accusatory manner when bringing it up. Remember that there are a lot of sources out there that are meant to be used as example code, and that if permission to copy is given it isn't "cheating" to do so.
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
Rewriting simply because it was written external to the company isn't a good thing. Rewriting because it was written external to the company and you're not certain of your company's license to legally make use of the code is an *entirely* different thing.
The author not attaching a particular license to the code is not a blanket license to do with as you will. The author may have intended that, but I don't believe it's true in the legal sense.
It might make more sense to go as you're suggesting, but given the mess that is current copyright law, a business ought to tread more carefully.
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:4, Informative)
Layne
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On one hand, I have found that people who post code fragments online generally intend for people to copy and adapt their works. However, obviously you don't want to rely on this norm for protection, even if it was provided specifically as sample code.
The best option is to first make a good effort to contact the author of the code and express an interest in using the code. You may or may not want to discuss the whole situation wi
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:5, Funny)
Or should we just start making Xerox copies of the zombie survival guide?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They're called photocopies, you trademark infringer!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
On Discworld at least (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:5, Funny)
Step Two: Do not bite driver
Step Three: Tell Final Destination to Driver
Step Four: Do not nibble on driver
Step Four 1/2: Go to Bookstore
Step Five: Exit Vehicle after biting driver (Zombies don't pay)
Step Six: Find book in bookstore
Step Six 4/5: Take book without paying. See Step Five.
Step Seven: Bite other patrons as desired, being careful to avoid anyone with a knife or anyone standing in the Military History section. Such patrons may already know how to kill Zombies and should be avoided.
Step Eight: Shamble home, avoiding law enforcement officers and other armed humans.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Note however that if you publish in a certain medium you may be providing certain implied license terms even if you explicitly claim otherwise. For example you can't put a notice on a website saying that all copying of it (outside strict fair use) is prohibited as to even
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have had people, I think on the Creative Commons mailing lists, tell me that this is not the case in their countries... That the work must be original or creative or something along those lines and that things like a recording of water cooler conversations and the like would likely fail this and not get copyright protection.
I don't claim to understand this at this point, but if so, there are some thing
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:5, Informative)
If you instead rewrite the code, you face the possible claim that your new code is a derivative work which is also covered by the original author's copyright. The "cleanroom" approach is sometimes used to avoid this. Have someone who has seen the original code spec the functions, and give the spec but not the original code to a programmer who has never seen the original. Document carefully what you have done and why. If the programmer who writes the code has no access to the original, he can't copy it. Then you only have to worry about software patents -- but that's a separate issue.
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
Your advice is, indeed, a legal way to proceed. It is also impossible for the poster. That's not one of his choices.
Were I him, I would not admit to having noticed anything. Possibly, depending on personality factors, I might get into a discussion with the other code about copyrights, laws, and ethics, but I would be very careful to not admit having noticed that he might have done anything improper.
You are talking here of a new hire. The low man on the totem pole. And this is a case where the proprietaries aren't entirely clear. (E.g., this person should definitely not attempt to acquire a commercial license, as he wouldn't have the right to comit his company to anything.)
FWIW, I consider there to be a fair chance that the example is from a standard text on algorithms. I certainly have no proof that this is true, but it might well be. If so, the PURPOSE of the book was to share how to do various things, say Shell sorts. (Probably not, as that's now commonly built into languages.)
That which you are suggesting is probably something that even the lead programmer wouldn't be able to get the department to do. Yes, it's the legal approach. And it's total impracticality is a small part of what's wrong with the legal approach, and why essentially nobody uses it.
Personally, my favored way of avoiding this problem is to use GPL software...but it doesn't totally get around the problems that the legal approach has saddled us with. We weren't told what license the issued product would be under, and it might BE under GPL. This wouldn't solve any of the problems in this case...this case where there shouldn't BE any problems.
Text published in a public forum without an attached license should BE public domain, with all liability resting on the person or entity who published it. (I'll grant that this would make the GPL a lot more like the BSD license, but in an ideal world those two would be identical in effect. It's the imperfections that cause me to adhere to the GPL.)
bad advice on GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
This *causes* legal problems, it doesn't solve them and is bad advice. How you can use GPL code in conjunction with your proprietary software is highly legally constrained. If you use GPL libraries, the GPL license then applies to your code. Supposedly LGPL gets around this, but not really due to ambiguities in the license (the license uses the ambiguous term "derives from" which has a different meaning when used with object oriented software). Note that glibc has a special exception, and that it is generally ok to use.
>We weren't told what license the issued product would be under, and it might BE under GPL.
It doesn't matter whether the software he is releasing is under GPL. You can't just apply the GPL to someone else's non GPL code without their permission. You'd not only be opening up your company to lawsuit, but probably everyone who uses your code.
The GPL is not a magic license that you can invoke and use other people's software however you want. It is a useful license in many situations, but it clearly does nothing to help the OP.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well it could be a lot more likely now, if the original author reads \.
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, in reality, the author posted it to a forum, probably with the intention of giving away the code. It would be entirely up to the author to sue and whether the author would sue or not -- well, I kinda doubt it.
But, if I were you, OP, I'd check with your company's legal department and/or an attorney. Asking questions like this on Slashdot is likely to result in you getting a lot of misinformation.
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
It's possible the project head already has permission to use it or may even know the programmer who posted the code to the forum. There could be any number of legit reasons why nothing was said about it in the code comments. It's even possible that post was made my the project leader under a different name.
To me, this sounds like the OP is a quite young programmer who is looking for a chance to lead a moral crusade rather than get the job done. In my experience I avoid taking on employees like that because they seem more focused on making sure everyone else follows their ethics than in doing a good job on the task at hand.
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Unless, of course, one KLOC means 1024 LOC.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
About four things:
First, it's too short to be a likely candidate for copyright protection. Copyright is about creative works, not short phrases. The most protection one can get for a short phrase is trademark, and that's only for use in connection with selling things. For example, if the FDR family sold bear repellent spray, they might be able to use "Nothing to fear but fear itself"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are you sure now? Because the terms of service of the forum might claim copyright of all posts.
They can claim all sorts of things, but that does not mean it will stand up in court. Even if the forum owns the copyright, that does not help the person who has not licensed it from anyone.
In general, letters sent by post are considered property of the recipient.
And books are considered the property of the purchaser, but that does not make them the copyright holder.
So a statement made for public consumption might be considered property of the public.
Nope, it is assumed all copyrighted material is for public consumption, since copyright law exists to promote publication. Try republishing a story from a large newspaper and see what happens.
Otherwise, what is to stop FDR family from claiming copyright on the phrase "we have nothing to fear by fear itself"?
Well, several
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Chances are if they didn't pay to have the code snippets coded, or provide an incentive for doing so, that they wouldn't be able to claim the code as a work for hire.
They would also have to deal with the fact that in most cases the code snippets came from somewhere else. While from time to time the code might be written on the fly for a specific question, in many cases the code is g
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I consider myself a pretty good coder, but when I recently was tasked with writing a wrapper to run a shell command and capture stdout, stderr, and redirect a file into stdin. I wasn't sure where to really start...
This MSDN article (which I found via google) went a long way towards covering the topic:
http://support.microso [microsoft.com]
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't attach a license or explicit release to every piece of code I've posted to forums or newsgroups or what-have-you over the years, and I have had every expectation that many of those would get copied and pasted into applications without attribution. I'd prefer it if, when that stuff ended up inside an app, there were a note saying "here's the original source" because when I've stumbled across such code it's sometimes made it easier to figure out what it's supposed to be doing, but I don't expect it.
If ScuttleMonkey has an indication that the original license is not something that allows incorporation into the code, then it's totally reasonable to escalate this one over the lead's head early on, but it sounds like this was something picked up off a site like CodeProject.com, where it's completely reasonable to assume that the intent of the poster was that this code be incorporated and adapted without further license terms.
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:5, Informative)
>Of course it is. This kind of thing happens all the time.
This may be completely commonplace, but it is certainly not legal. Simply posting something in a public place does NOT put it in the public domain, and contrary to what many people in this forum are saying, failing to attach a copyright notification to something does NOT place it in the public domain either. Assuming the author posted the information after 1976 and is covered by american law, then the copyright act of 1976 provides for automatic copyright protections, unless there is some notification which explicitly puts it under a license which permits it use.
The original poster will probably never be called out if he leaves the situation as it stands he is still breaking the law. His options for avoiding this are to either find another copy of the code which is listed under a license, contact the author and ask for a license, or to rewrite the code.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've actually left out a lot of caveats here, and IANAL, but most of the caveats are things that only get settled after litigation, which is something you want to avoid. People have replied to me talking about things like 'works created for public use' or talking about how anything in comp.* on usenet is essentially meant to be use
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it is. This kind of thing happens all the time.
> The original author didn't attach any particular license to the code.
I think that says it all. Yes, that means they have no license to the code and must ask for one. End of story.
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
>> The original author didn't attach any particular license to the code.
> I think that says it all.
Yes, but it does not say what you seem to imply. If the original author did not grant permission, you can not use the code (but you can implement the same algorithm yourself, at least as long as there is no patent preventing that). Note that the author does not have to include such a permission in every piece of code. It can be in an accompanying file, or it can even be in the Terms of Use of whatever bulletin board or website he used to publish it. But you have to check that.
Granted, as long as you do not distribute the source, nobody will spot a 200 line piece of code and this kind of copying indeed happens all the time, but that does not make it legal in the strict sense of the word. I once wanted to use a small library that is floating about out there without any license/copyright statement. As it would have been possible for our customers to spot the use, I checked with our legal department and they were very firm: if I could get the author to explicitly approve it, it was OK, otherwise not. He did not reply, so I had to scrap the idea.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt it. Fair use means convincing a court that the use you're making of the material is really fair. In many cases, that means writing something that's sufficiently different that the court believes you're not really competing directly with the original author -- for example, a book review that quotes a few lines from a book isn't likely to be used as a substitute for buying the original story. Quoting a few partic
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:4, Insightful)
You make a valid point, which is why the concept of due diligence exists. Exhibiting due diligence is one thing that tends to set the professionals apart from the amateurs. But any way you cut it, just grabbing a substantial, unattributed bit of code off a web site and using it in a commercial product doesn't sound much like performing due diligence, and the OP is right to be concerned.
To the OP: If I were in your position, for a start I wouldn't touch the code that already exists so it's very clear I didn't put it there or have anything to do with using someone else's copyrighted code. An informal approach drawing it to management's attention is probably a reasonable first action to try and restore compliance. If it's a larger company, they might have a dedicated compliance contact in the legal department you could approach if management is unresponsive. In any case, if the situation is not resolved quickly and appropriately, I would be planning on finding another job as soon as possible, since you really don't want to get caught up in any potential legal action, and it sounds like you're in the optimum position to become the fall guy.
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:4, Insightful)
The sad part is 3 or 4 years ago, the Slashdot groupthink would be all in favor of sharing free information in public forums because information wanted to be free. That was the foundation of the internet and the origin of Usenet in the first place... i.e. a Users Network. But today, with copyrighted this and imaginary property that and patented other thing..., the consensus is no longer in support of the free exchange of information that was so dominant but rather the brainwashed "damnit you better adhere to the letter of the law or face serious consequences" groupthink.
Meanwhile, while this flame war is taking place here on slashdot, the users over at Usenet continue sharing information with each other freely as has been done for nearly 30 years now without concern and without thought of the cold chill of a copyright lawsuit crawling up their spine.
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:4, Insightful)
Extreme groupthink isn't healthy in any direction, precisely because it tends to trample on any dissenting views, no matter how valid.
Information doesn't want to be free. Information doesn't want anything at all. It simply exists, and it can be shared by those who have it. (The argument that "you can't prevent it being shared, so sharing it must be OK" is unhelpful: you can't realistically prevent me committing many evil acts, but that doesn't mean society should condone my doing so by legalising them.)
Similarly, empty-headed support for any copyright law is unhelpful, because you start equating the current law with ethics, which is always a dangerous path to follow. The law should follow ethics, not the other way around.
However, in this discussion, the original question seems to relate to a real situation, and therefore what is called for is a real answer based on real laws as they stand today. Misrepresenting those laws, whether because you happen to disagree with them or because you simply don't know what you're talking about, doesn't help the OP to solve his problem, and that's why I object to many of the replies and moderations in this discussion.
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:4, Insightful)
It's entirely possible the guy wrote the code and also posted it to the forum, perhaps under another name. It's also possible he obtained permission to use the code.
But posting code publicly most certainly does not license other people to use or copy it and professional software development organizations take such things *very* seriously.
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you've been under a rock for the past 35 years or so. A split second of common sense would show how crazy your claim is. Songs are played on the radio, which is precisely akin to a public post. So can I record them off the radio and sell copies?
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:4, Interesting)
Remember the windows 2000 source code link. Most of the code in the TCP/IP stacks were from Novell. But did they have permission to use it? Who knows.
In this case though, I'd say public forum is public use. I've posted lots of code in forums as tutorials or tips. I'm not going to write a EULA or specify it must be GPL, LGPL, Mozilla Public License, EULA, BSD License, or make up my own. If I post it, and you find it useful, use it.
That said, if you have a really guilty conscience about it, they use the forum to contact the poster and see what he says. I'm sure he'll "say, yeah.. sure, whatever."
The public domain (Score:4, Insightful)
So if you want the content you post to be freely and legally usable by everyone you have to license it. You don't have to bother with all kinds of FOSS licenses as you can just declare that it is in the public domain, which means that you are still the copyright holder but you license your work to everyone to do whatever they want with it.
So the OP raises a valid point: that code represents a risk to the organization he works for. Perhaps a small risk, but if later it is discovered it might cost money to the organization. If this was code used in a FOSS project and someone posted a comment about it I believe the issue would be immediately addressed by either locating the source and verifying that it is reusable (and documenting the fact in the source0 or replacing it. A closed source project might react differently (such as by making sure the code is not exposed to the outside world so that infringement can not be detected) but it still would want to reduce the risks involved in using unlicensed content.
This aspect of copyright law was perhaps good at the time when the mere fact that a work is published indicated that someone made an effort and investment in publishing it. It is very inappropriate today because no real effort and practically no investment is needed to publish content, and people do post lots of content with the intention that everybody could use it freely. This should be changed and this change would be good for everybody, and especially for those who don't want their works freely distributed, because one of the arguments available now is that there is no way to tell content that is freely distributable from content that is not, and most of the unmarked content out there was meant to be freely distributable by the autheor, despite the author's failure to explicitly attach a license (including a license that puts the content in the public domain).
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because you don't know the source of this expression doesn't mean it is offtopic.
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I'd forget that that I found it.
Reverse it.. act niave... and inform management... (Score:5, Funny)
Then let them figure out the truth, and get indignant with your boss.
A sleazy thing to do to a sleazy guy
Storm
p.s. The correct answer is to get your boss and his in a room, and explain the situation. And more than likely you'll be stuck re-coding it. And your boss will hate your guts, his boss will be cranky with both of you. But it would be the right way to handle the situation.
OT: Burning money (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
well, just because I am bored and want to have some fun with figures tonight:
56 Billion dollars U.S. is 3,000,666 cubic feet of paper weighing 1,120,000 lbs
(more than 500 feet long, 200 feet wide and 30 feet thick)
Assuming we build some kind of furnace capable of burning paper with perfect efficiency at one pound per minute(I know, I know...)** it w
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But this is why it is a big benefit to the USA that Saudi Arabia sells oil in USD, Japan, China etc sell stuff in USD and so on. This means hundreds of countries around the world will need to hold and keep US Dollars.
Then whenever the US Gov decides to print money, they get to instantly tax all those entities around the world who are holding those US dollars that just got cheaper.
So Japan and China sell stuff to the USA and get lots of US Doll
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:4, Interesting)
If the author of the song threw it in *a lot* of public mass media, I would personally call that implicit permission to use the song. Otherwise, why make it so public?
"As to the legality of downloading it, if it is showing in your browser window, you have already downloaded it."
As to the legality of downloading it, if it going out your speakers, you have already downloaded it.
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't see a license attached to a bootlegged DVD or game, either. Because the license was attached to the ORIGINAL material, and violated in the distribution of the mp3. As several people have brought up, there's a possibility that this code was taken from something that was licensed, and given away as implicitly free.
Regarding the OP, I'm siding with the "forget it and leave it be" camp. If you don't make a fuss, the only person that could get in potential trouble if it turned out to be rotten would be the guy who wrote it. There's no assumed responsibility on you to check everybody else's code for licensing issues, and nobody could prove that you'd made this discovery, so you could feign ignorance. Well, unless a vigilante Slashdotter tracks you down and brings the law down on you. You might want to consider hiding.
Unless you've got some ENORMOUS ethical battle to fight on this particular issue, ignore it. Or rewrite the code on your own time to keep the project on-schedule.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the company could be in potential trouble, and depending how critical the code is (and whether the one example is an isolated case or part of a pervasive trend), everyone who depends on the company for their livelihood could be negatively impacted.
Re:Due dilligence and move on (Score:5, Informative)
You'd be wrong. (At least in the United States you would.)
From http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html [copyright.gov]: "Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work" and "The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law...."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nope.
Re:Due dilligence and move on (Score:5, Insightful)
Note, though, that posting code on a forum with no copyright notice does not put it in the public domain. IIRC, the lack of copyright notice means that the first move of the copyright owner can not be to sue you, they must first notify you of the violation and give you a chance to fix it. In other words, the law takes into consideration that without a copyright notice you might accidentally copy something you shouldn't and allows for the violator to fix the problem once notified.
So the worst case is that the copyright owner makes your company change the code at some point in the future. If you put the recommended comment in, your company will know (i) its not your fault and (ii) you were heads-up enough to look into the issue a little further when you noticed it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Using Code Examples
This book is here to help you get your job done. In general, you may use the code in this book in your programs and documentation. You do not need to contact us for permission unless you're reproducing a significant portion of the code. For example, writing a program that uses several chunks of code from this book does not require permission. Selling or distributing a CD-ROM of examples from O'Reilly books does
Re:Um... what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Code posted on the web with no license is free. (Score:3, Insightful)
You would be hard pressed to be more wrong. All creative works are copyrighted and unless licensed are not free for anyone to use except under very specific conditions.
>Ever find a quarter on the ground? Somebody ever give you one? Did you require a deed to prove you had the right to the quarter?
That's an asinine comparison. A quarter isn't a creative work. Quarters are not covered under intellectual property law.