Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
more useful options

Re: What if it were you instead of Linus?

by PodMaster (Abbot)
on Mar 11, 2004 at 09:28 UTC ( #335751=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to What if it were you instead of Linus?

Hmmm, that's a pickle, and quite frankly, I've never thought about it (my employer does not own me, and I don't sign nothing).

A lot of patches I submit are very minimal and I can't imagine any IP issues arising. A typical example is Bug #5614 unresolved external symbol _get_elapsed.

For my modules, I like all bug reports/suggestions/etc to be submitted via, so much for documentation I guess.

All the bug reports and patches I've gotten so far have basically been a courteous "you've missed a spot here/there", not amounting to much more than someone pointing out a typo (which I do credit the author for in a Changes file).

Do you really need permission from the person who owns you to point out a typo?

Does IBM have any guidelines?

MJD says "you can't just make shit up and expect the computer to know what you mean, retardo!"
I run a Win32 PPM repository for perl 5.6.x and 5.8.x -- I take requests (README).
** The third rule of perl club is a statement of fact: pod is sexy.

  • Comment on Re: What if it were you instead of Linus?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: What if it were you instead of Linus?
by grantm (Parson) on Mar 11, 2004 at 09:43 UTC
    Does IBM have any guidelines?

    I considered asking. Then I thought "do I really want a comprehensive 12 page PDF in 6pt type that I have to mail to contributors and get them to fax it back to me with the requisite 7 signatures before I look at their patch"? I didn't ask.

Re: Re: What if it were you instead of Linus?
by theorbtwo (Prior) on Mar 11, 2004 at 15:26 UTC

    There is a concept in copyright law of a minimum size below which something cannot have been a copyrightable work. That bug report, in purticular, would appear to be well below the limit.

    If that is the case, it does not matter if you copied the bug report of someone else without having the right to copy (which is what copyright means, of course).

    Update: The second paragraph is wrong in it's reasoning: there is a certian minimum size, below which it is not possible to restrict the right to copy: everone has it, and it is impossible to lack that right.

    The interesting question, of course, is what is that limit.

    I am not a lawyer.

      There is a concept in copyright law of a minimum size below which something cannot have been a copyrightable work.... The interesting question, of course, is what is that limit.

      Well... it is an interesting question... I imagine it is highly subjective and depends on the individual case in question. There's one fairly public example: a certain haiku used for email certification. The basic idea of this system is that email senders would include this haiku in x-headers, and mail relays would only allow such email through. Then, the terms of use for the copyright liscense are, in effect, that the mail is not spam. Thus, if you send spam without this header, it will get routed off into the void, and if you do use this header for spam, then you are violating copyright, and, thus, remedies are available.

      It probably won't work, but it's an interesting idea, and it seems apropos of the question.

      ------------ :Wq Not an editor command: Wq

        I've heard that particular spam-defense before, and it's clever. The problem is that you are stuck with the copyright holder's definition of "spam", which has a high possiblity for abuse. It's potentially a new ICANN/VeriSign in the making. Sure, you could get everyone to try using a new haiku with a different copyright holder, but once the idea is entrenched, it'll be about as easy to switch everyone to that haiku as it is to switch everyone to alternative DNS root servers.

        (Meta-thought: a lot of proposed or even implemented spam solutions are as bad or worse than the problem. This is one of them.)

        : () { :|:& };:

        Note: All code is untested, unless otherwise stated

      There is a concept in copyright law of a minimum size below which something cannot have been a copyrightable work.

      Can you point me to any statute indicating this?

      There is a concept in the practical management of many projects that any patch below, say, 10 lines can be merged without worrying about copyright issues. I do not know of any court that has ruled this to be the case, though. And I don't recall seeing any lawyer comment definitively either way on it.

        Well, that's a very good question. Like I said, IANAL. I thought the GNU web site would be a good place to start looking, but I only found this. It repeats my concept of too-small-to-be-copyrightable, with some additional information, but does not give any information as to where this is encoded in the law (but I doubt the GNU project would say it was OK if it were not encoded in law). It also mentions that bug reports of the sort that PM was worried about are ideas, not code, and thus copyright does not apply to them. (Patents might, but they're pretty clearly obvious, and more importantly, things are not automaticly patented per default the way that they are automaticly copyrighted.)

        Googling from there has gotten me nowhere. Sorry.

        Warning: Unless otherwise stated, code is untested. Do not use without understanding. Code is posted in the hopes it is useful, but without warranty. All copyrights are relinquished into the public domain unless otherwise stated. I am not an angel. I am capable of error, and err on a fairly regular basis. If I made a mistake, please let me know (such as by replying to this node).

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://335751]
[1nickt]: What do you all think of experimental = refaliasing ? Anyone using it?
[1nickt]: \my %foo = { bar => 1 }; say $foo{bar};
[Corion]: 1nickt: Would be great, especially for naming parameters in @_.
[Corion]: When you pass an arrayref, you get to treat it like a local array. But then, I'm cautious with the experimental features, because just when I thought function signatures were a set thing, there is a proposal to use sub [ $foo, $bar ] { ... } to ...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others meditating upon the Monastery: (7)
As of 2017-11-17 20:38 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    In order to be able to say "I know Perl", you must have:

    Results (272 votes). Check out past polls.