Python license (2.3)

[Antoon Pardon]

Re: Python license (2.3)

Op 2005-04-14, Robert Kern schreef <rkern@ucsd.edu >:[color=blue]
> Antoon Pardon wrote:[color=green]
>> Op 2005-04-13, Robert Kern schreef <rkern@ucsd.edu >:
>>
>> I would do that if I were just writing code I thought others could
>> find usefull. I then would feel no problem "burdening" those users
>> with the same kind of license I found in the product I took some
>> code from. But I also think that readers of documentation should
>> be free to use any code included in any way they see fit.[/color]
>
> If they have issues with distributing code derived from Python, why are
> they reading a Python tutorial?[/color]

Try and look it from a students viewpoint. He is learing languages,
algorithms and so on. Now he is ready to write his own program.
Chances are high that he will rely on examples from the
courses/documentation he read. It is just not practical for someone
like that to figure out all the possible different licenses under
which he can use the examples from the various documenation sources.

Now if this documentation refers to code from yet another source
with its own license, using it becomes an utter nightmare for
the student, because now he has to figure out which piece of
the code is original from the author of the documentation and
which was copied from the other source.

Consideration like this, let me come to the conclusion that
code included with documentation should come with no strings
attached for the students to reuse.

--
Antoon Pardon

[Robert Kern]

Re: Python license (2.3)

Antoon Pardon wrote:[color=blue]
> Op 2005-04-14, Robert Kern schreef <rkern@ucsd.edu >:
>[color=green]
>>Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Op 2005-04-13, Robert Kern schreef <rkern@ucsd.edu >:
>>>
>>>I would do that if I were just writing code I thought others could
>>>find usefull. I then would feel no problem "burdening" those users
>>>with the same kind of license I found in the product I took some
>>>code from. But I also think that readers of documentation should
>>>be free to use any code included in any way they see fit.[/color]
>>
>>If they have issues with distributing code derived from Python, why are
>>they reading a Python tutorial?[/color]
>
>
> Try and look it from a students viewpoint. He is learing languages,
> algorithms and so on. Now he is ready to write his own program.
> Chances are high that he will rely on examples from the
> courses/documentation he read. It is just not practical for someone
> like that to figure out all the possible different licenses under
> which he can use the examples from the various documenation sources.[/color]

The PSF License is about as light as they come.
[color=blue]
> Now if this documentation refers to code from yet another source
> with its own license, using it becomes an utter nightmare for
> the student, because now he has to figure out which piece of
> the code is original from the author of the documentation and
> which was copied from the other source.[/color]

Then write your own code and don't use anyone else's. You can't offer
extra permissions for code that's not yours.
[color=blue]
> Consideration like this, let me come to the conclusion that
> code included with documentation should come with no strings
> attached for the students to reuse.[/color]

No such thing, really. Copyright law requires almost as much as the PSF
license. The MIT license is shorter, possibly more easily
understandable, but practically amounts to more-or-less the same thing.

In short, don't worry about it. Don't sue people, keep the attributions
intact, and probably no one will care.

--
Robert Kern
rkern@ucsd.edu

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter

[Antoon Pardon]

Re: Python license (2.3)

Op 2005-04-14, Robert Kern schreef <rkern@ucsd.edu >:[color=blue]
> Antoon Pardon wrote:[color=green]
>> Op 2005-04-14, Robert Kern schreef <rkern@ucsd.edu >:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>>
>>>>Op 2005-04-13, Robert Kern schreef <rkern@ucsd.edu >:
>>>>
>>>>I would do that if I were just writing code I thought others could
>>>>find usefull. I then would feel no problem "burdening" those users
>>>>with the same kind of license I found in the product I took some
>>>>code from. But I also think that readers of documentation should
>>>>be free to use any code included in any way they see fit.
>>>
>>>If they have issues with distributing code derived from Python, why are
>>>they reading a Python tutorial?[/color]
>>
>>
>> Try and look it from a students viewpoint. He is learing languages,
>> algorithms and so on. Now he is ready to write his own program.
>> Chances are high that he will rely on examples from the
>> courses/documentation he read. It is just not practical for someone
>> like that to figure out all the possible different licenses under
>> which he can use the examples from the various documenation sources.[/color]
>
> The PSF License is about as light as they come.
>[color=green]
>> Now if this documentation refers to code from yet another source
>> with its own license, using it becomes an utter nightmare for
>> the student, because now he has to figure out which piece of
>> the code is original from the author of the documentation and
>> which was copied from the other source.[/color]
>
> Then write your own code and don't use anyone else's. You can't offer
> extra permissions for code that's not yours.[/color]

Well then I'll just have to do that.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Consideration like this, let me come to the conclusion that
>> code included with documentation should come with no strings
>> attached for the students to reuse.[/color]
>
> No such thing, really. Copyright law requires almost as much as the PSF
> license. The MIT license is shorter, possibly more easily
> understandable, but practically amounts to more-or-less the same thing.[/color]

If I read a tutorial or a course on algorithms both with examples.
Does copyright law require that I attribute if I reuse code
from these examples? Even if it was pseudo code that I had
to translate in an actual language.

Suppose some time has passed and I have to write similar code.
I cant find the documentation but this time I'm experienced
enough so that I can recreate the code. Do I still need to
attribute the code?

What if the code is so short that basically everyone that
solves the problem writes the same kind of code?
[color=blue]
> In short, don't worry about it. Don't sue people, keep the attributions
> intact, and probably no one will care.[/color]

If they don't care, why did they attach such a license in the first
place.

--
Antoon Pardon

[Robert Kern]

Re: Python license (2.3)

Antoon Pardon wrote:[color=blue]
> Op 2005-04-14, Robert Kern schreef <rkern@ucsd.edu >:
>[color=green]
>>Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Op 2005-04-14, Robert Kern schreef <rkern@ucsd.edu >:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Op 2005-04-13, Robert Kern schreef <rkern@ucsd.edu >:
>>>>>
>>>>>I would do that if I were just writing code I thought others could
>>>>>find usefull. I then would feel no problem "burdening" those users
>>>>>with the same kind of license I found in the product I took some
>>>>>code from. But I also think that readers of documentation should
>>>>>be free to use any code included in any way they see fit.
>>>>
>>>>If they have issues with distributing code derived from Python, why are
>>>>they reading a Python tutorial?
>>>
>>>
>>>Try and look it from a students viewpoint. He is learing languages,
>>>algorithms and so on. Now he is ready to write his own program.
>>>Chances are high that he will rely on examples from the
>>>courses/documentation he read. It is just not practical for someone
>>>like that to figure out all the possible different licenses under
>>>which he can use the examples from the various documenation sources.[/color]
>>
>>The PSF License is about as light as they come.
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Now if this documentation refers to code from yet another source
>>>with its own license, using it becomes an utter nightmare for
>>>the student, because now he has to figure out which piece of
>>>the code is original from the author of the documentation and
>>>which was copied from the other source.[/color]
>>
>>Then write your own code and don't use anyone else's. You can't offer
>>extra permissions for code that's not yours.[/color]
>
>
> Well then I'll just have to do that.
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Consideratio n like this, let me come to the conclusion that
>>>code included with documentation should come with no strings
>>>attached for the students to reuse.[/color]
>>
>>No such thing, really. Copyright law requires almost as much as the PSF
>>license. The MIT license is shorter, possibly more easily
>>understandabl e, but practically amounts to more-or-less the same thing.[/color]
>
>
> If I read a tutorial or a course on algorithms both with examples.
> Does copyright law require that I attribute if I reuse code
> from these examples?[/color]

If the amount copied is large enough.
[color=blue]
> Even if it was pseudo code that I had
> to translate in an actual language.[/color]

Probably not. Copyright controls copying (and a few other things, but
they have less relevance in a software context).
[color=blue]
> Suppose some time has passed and I have to write similar code.
> I cant find the documentation but this time I'm experienced
> enough so that I can recreate the code. Do I still need to
> attribute the code?[/color]

Again, probably not.
[color=blue]
> What if the code is so short that basically everyone that
> solves the problem writes the same kind of code?[/color]

No, copyright requires creativity.

Rosen's book should answer these questions for you.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>In short, don't worry about it. Don't sue people, keep the attributions
>>intact, and probably no one will care.[/color][/color]

Sorry, that list should also have had "follow courteous practices with
other people's code" which includes listing changes and a reference to
the license of that code.
[color=blue]
> If they don't care, why did they attach such a license in the first
> place.[/color]

Lawyers. The original license (the "CNRI License") was much briefer and
vaguer, although it amounts to the same requirements, practically. The
PSF license made those requirements, disclaimers, etc. explicit.

--
Robert Kern
rkern@ucsd.edu

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter