Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)

trillian.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 86 posts

Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)

#31

Post by Miiko »

TheDong wrote: post #8

> So if you use blank lines in any of your files, you are in blatant violation of AT&T's copyright claim Independent derivation of a work is defense against copyright infringement. Even if the copyright on these blank lines were to be valid, it would be reasonable to claim that your own use of blank lines was independent, not a derivative work copying from theirs. Patents do not require actual copying to infringe, bu…

> Patents do not require actual copying to infringe, but copyright does.

In other words, if you use Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V to copy these blank lines, then you infringe AT&T copyright. If you don't and add blank lines by other means - you don't ;)

Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)

#33

Post by anyfoo »

cowturds wrote: post #30

/bin/true is backwards then since 0 usually means false > Zero is used to represent false, and One is used to represent true. For interpretation, Zero is interpreted as false and anything non-zero is interpreted as true.

Not in this context. In POSIX exit codes, 0 means “no error”, i.e. success. && and || in the shell even work like that.

Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)

#34

Post by bdowling »

TheDong wrote: post #27
axiosgunnar wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might help to prove intent when somebody does violate a license (they cannot say "oh wow this was copyrighted? i totally didn't know!")

I don't think that follows naturally. The default if code does not have any notice anywhere is that it is copyrighted, and no license is given to anyone to use it, so any use of it is a violation. At least in the US, all creative works are copyrighted by default (such as this comment, which does not include a notice of such, but is copyrighted). Because of that, the default assumption of anyone would be that anything…

A copyright notice is relevant to willful infringement, which may result in higher damages. Willful infringement requires that the infringer actually knew or should have known (or deliberately avoided finding out) that the copied material was copyrighted.

Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)

#35

Post by bobbylarrybobby »

cowturds wrote: post #30

/bin/true is backwards then since 0 usually means false > Zero is used to represent false, and One is used to represent true. For interpretation, Zero is interpreted as false and anything non-zero is interpreted as true.

Shell commands use an exit status of 0 to indicate success, and any other number indicates failure

Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)

#36

Post by kragen »

tsimionescu wrote: post #25
kragen wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Adding copyright notices to every source code file is reasonable because it costs next to nothing. Yes, if your integrity is worthless.

My company doesn't require this, but I also don't understand in any way how adding copyright boilerplate to each source file has anything to do with the writer's integrity. Are the people in the GNU foundation lacking in integrity, since they have this policy?

Placing copyright notices on things you don't have a copyright on amounts to making a false claim that they are not only copyrightable but that you own the copyright, hoping to intimidate other people out of exercising their legal rights. Lying in order to intimidate people, particularly to intimidate them into paying you, is not only dishonest but contemptible. It's no different from the mugger who says he owns the Golden Gate Bridge and demands $10 from you to cross it.

The GNU foundation, whatever its failings, does not have a policy of claiming copyright on blank lines.

Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)

#37

Post by cperciva »

bdowling wrote: post #34
TheDong wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that follows naturally. The default if code does not have any notice anywhere is that it is copyrighted, and no license is given to anyone to use it, so any use of it is a violation. At least in the US, all creative works are copyrighted by default (such as this comment, which does not include a notice of such, but is copyrighted). Because of that, the default assumption of anyone would be that anything…

A copyright notice is relevant to willful infringement, which may result in higher damages. Willful infringement requires that the infringer actually knew or should have known (or deliberately avoided finding out) that the copied material was copyrighted.

When you're talking about source code, I don't think anyone is going to get away with "I thought the author died more than 70 years ago".

Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)

#38

Post by Thiez »

bdowling wrote: post #34
TheDong wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that follows naturally. The default if code does not have any notice anywhere is that it is copyrighted, and no license is given to anyone to use it, so any use of it is a violation. At least in the US, all creative works are copyrighted by default (such as this comment, which does not include a notice of such, but is copyrighted). Because of that, the default assumption of anyone would be that anything…

A copyright notice is relevant to willful infringement, which may result in higher damages. Willful infringement requires that the infringer actually knew or should have known (or deliberately avoided finding out) that the copied material was copyrighted.

If any creative work is copyrighted by default (and ignorance of the law is not an excuse) then surely all use of a creative work without a license is willful infringement?

Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)

#39

Post by randombits0 »

bdowling wrote: post #9

Adding copyright notices to every source code file is reasonable because it costs next to nothing. Figuring out what is copyrightable, on the other hand, is expensive, because it requires lawyers, and a waste of time because lawyers' answers are always "it depends". You never actually know how enforceable your copyright claim is until you actually litigate, which is REALLY expensive.

To expand on that idea, purely functional expressions are not copyrightable in the first place. How and when software becomes copyrightable is undefined in law.

Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)

#40

Post by kragen »

bdowling wrote: post #20
kragen wrote: post #15

See also https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandjazzmusic/3... ( https://archive.is/sjYJG ), where the rumored settlement payment was £100,000.

Sometimes parties pay what seems like a lot of money to settle dubious claims because it's cheaper and less time-consuming than fighting them. That can be completely rational. But paying £100,000 for infringing one minute of silence is just ridiculous.

Well, he sold a lot of copies of that one minute of silence, so I think the real question is whether it was copyrightable. I mean, if the answer is "yes", then the following question is what reason there is to suspect that the government that made it copyrightable is anything more than a criminal racket.
Post reply on HN