On macos, /usr/bin/true is 118K, not counted the linked shared libSystem.dylib. I wonder what did they put in there? Doesn't seem to have --version or any GNU bells and whistles of that nature.
How big is a basic hello world compiled with -O3?
The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)
71–80 of 86 posts
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adding copyright notices to every source code file is also pointless, since copyright notices are no longer required to obtain copyright protection.
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!")
For my hobby projects I add a one-line comment at the bottom refering to the license and its file.
// Please keep this line & LICENSE: Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I thought your comentarii was referring to the practice of adding copyright notices to files in general. Specifically adding a copyright notice to an otherwise empty file is indeed scummy.
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)
#74> This prevents AT&T, Sun or SCO from taking the GNU code, claiming it as their own, and suing the linux crowd for infringement.
you see, no matter how trivial the matter, the lawyers manage to have their share.
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? Do you have a reference for that?
US Copyright law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 (b)In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. Thus, if it is simply the description of the algorithm to accomplish a process…
I, too, miss GrokLaw…
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Copyright is limited in time (at least in theory!).
U.S. government works are not eligible for copyright.
Some works do not have sufficient creative element to be covered by copyright, or the other user may be using only the non-covered elements of the work (factual collections, or see recipes).
But probably most important, fair use is a limitation to the exclusive rights of copyright, in spite of copyright holders' frequent assertions that "any other use without written consent is prohibited". A use may be fair even against the express wishes of a valid copyright holder, as fair use is not infringement. Factors to be evaluated in fair use include, but are limited to:
(1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2)the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3)the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 see 107-112 for other limitations of copyright.
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adding copyright notices to every source code file is also pointless, since copyright notices are no longer required to obtain copyright protection.
Indeed. That said, it's worth noting the files in the article predate that. The US didn't join the Berne convention until 1 March 1989.
Right, there was good reason for including copyright notices everywhere when people started doing it. But now it's just tradition (along with "all rights reserved" which has also lost its purpose).
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
What I look at answers on Stack Overflow, the lack of copyright notices on the code makes me feel safe to copy it. Same goes for grabbing code from random person's blog.
If they had put explicit copyright notices in the code snippets, I'd assume otherwise.
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
What I look at answers on Stack Overflow, the lack of copyright notices on the code makes me feel safe to copy it. Same goes for grabbing code from random person's blog. If they had put explicit copyright notices in the code snippets, I'd assume otherwise.
Your assumptions are likely wrong for those cases.
In the case of a random blog, the code likely does not have an associated license, meaning it is copyrighted and any derivative use of it (i.e. copying it) is a violation of their copyright.
In the case of stackoverflow, their ToS require people who post code to share it under a Creative Commons license [0]. Unfortunately, if the author of the post didn't realize that, it's possible they did not have the original copyright and couldn't make that assignment, so you still may have to do your own due diligence.
Where things work as intended on stackoverflow, you are required to provide attribution.
Your assumptions are backwards, and it sounds like that results in you violating copyright.
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009)
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I look at answers on Stack Overflow, the lack of copyright notices on the code makes me feel safe to copy it. Same goes for grabbing code from random person's blog. If they had put explicit copyright notices in the code snippets, I'd assume otherwise.
Your assumptions are likely wrong for those cases. In the case of a random blog, the code likely does not have an associated license, meaning it is copyrighted and any derivative use of it (i.e. copying it) is a violation of their copyright. In the case of stackoverflow, their ToS require people who post code to share it under a Creative Commons license [0]. Unfortunately, if the author of the post didn't realize tha…
I know the assumptions are wrong. But the point is the lack of explicit copyright notices on blogs or SO posts is probably enough to convince most courts that you did not willfully violate copyright. The parent I responded to implied you’d have to convince a court that you thought the copyright expired due to death.
In general I suffer from NIH complex so don’t really copy code from those places ;)