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

This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions

artemis.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 110 posts

Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions

#101

Post by pseudalopex »

londons_explore wrote: post #80
irdc wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It means any hobbyist can play around with it Not in legal terms it doesn't. In the absence of a licence, a copyrighted work may not be distributed in any way. So you could theoretically sue those hobbyists. Just bite the bullet and pick any of the common licenses. Sounds like you'd want one of CC-*-NC or perhaps AGPL.

Except no hobbyist seems to worry about such things. Occasionally I get messages asking me about the license, and I usually reply to them asking what they want to do/build and then I give them permission for whatever it is they want to make (for free).

The 2nd sentence sounds like hobbyists worrying about such things.

Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions

#102

Post by manquer »

REvsCfiwW7nP4u7 wrote: post #58
manquer wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because statute says something is wrong doesn’t make the act criminal automatically. For anything to be criminal there either has to be intent or the crime should be strict liability tort where intent does not matter. It is arguable whether copyright infringement is strict liability tort in practice or not - there are arguments on both sides, so context of the particular case or similar cases that can set preced…

tort = civil, a crime can not be any kind of tort...

Strict liability is used both in criminal and tort laws[1]

Modern copyright infringement has both civil and criminal components[2]

So yes an action can be both a tort and crime under the same law even.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_liability

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_copyright_law_in_th...

Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions

#103

Post by sidewndr46 »

Paradigma11 wrote: post #88
sidewndr46 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can think of at least a few individuals who might support the idea that US jurisdiction is either the only jurisdiction that matters, or at least covers the 90% of the Earth at minimum. Let's see: 1. Kim DotCom 2. Julian Assange 3. Edward Snowden 4. Henry Kissinger 5. Meng Wanzhou The list goes on I imagine, those are just the notable ones from my lifetime.

@Meng Wanzhou. She lied to companies to get them to unwittingly commit crimes on US soil. Seems reasonable that this is a crime in the US. But many other did the same without any consequences so this might be a selective application of the law.

She was detained in Canada.

Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions

#104

Post by eclipseo76 »

As one packaging Go daily for a distro, this doesn't surprise me (though thanks God we are not affected, probably because we unbundle everything and the license for each lib is then verified). Contrary to the Rust ecosystem, there is no central repo location or Cargo.toml that easily allow to parse the licenses used. So no cargo license commands. For static binaries we build, we don't have the entire set of licenses because the chain of dependencies can reach up to 650 packages.

Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions

#105

Post by ormaaj »

Dagonfly wrote: post #96
ormaaj wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No. Thats like saying the very act of sharing pictures online implies you want someone else to use them, or that printing your book and selling it somehow implies you want the world to copy it. Please explain how you are viewing this unlicensed reply without downloading it. > You share on GitHub because its a source control platform, and your code may be interesting to others. This does NOT mean that you are okay w…

> Please explain how HN is not taking my unlicensed reply and using it in their commercial HTML code sent to your web browser Nothing unlicensed about your reply. From HN's Terms of Use: > By uploading any User Content you hereby grant and will grant Y Combinator and its affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sublicensable, perpetual, irrevocable license to copy, di…

Yes a standard agreement such as that is expected and customary, and they have it for good reasons. However it is not strictly required in order to make use of user-submitted content.

Also as I have pointed out in other comments, this is a contract, and as such there are quite a few reasons that a contract like this might not be binding. One major weakness is its semblance to a "click through agreement". An agreement hidden in the footer of a website or in the fine print on a registration page is even more subtle than that and it's entirely possible build a case against implicit agreements that automatically kick in through mere use of a web service. There is considerable case law devoted to this and it's gone both ways - depending on the specific facts of the case, who makes the better argument, and the disposition of the judge.

Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions

#106

Post by ormaaj »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #97
ormaaj wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. If the work were unpublished however then that would be a very different situation.

They’re not wrong. In countries with implicit copyright (those following TRIPS[0]), barring any license to the contrary, you have no right to the copyrighted work published online. In other words, unlicensed code is “all rights reserved, no exceptions.” [0]: TRIPS Article 9 Section 1: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Trade-Related_As...

There are numerous rights and exceptions. Which exceptions apply vary by country and I can't speak for all countries, but virtually nothing in copyright law is strictly without exception. Unsurprisingly there's no shortage of people eager to convince you otherwise.

As an aside it is very strange that so many people derive their understanding of copyright law from various international treaties. These very rarely come into play in actual U.S. copyright cases and have little influence over the way courts interpret the law.

Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions

#107

Post by Paradigma11 »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #103
Paradigma11 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@Meng Wanzhou. She lied to companies to get them to unwittingly commit crimes on US soil. Seems reasonable that this is a crime in the US. But many other did the same without any consequences so this might be a selective application of the law.

She was detained in Canada.

Yes, because there is an extradition treaty with Canada. The problem seems to me the unequal application of the law, since there are many companies that did the same and were not prosecuted.

But the case itself seems pretty open and shut.

Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions

#108

Post by sidewndr46 »

Paradigma11 wrote: post #107
sidewndr46 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She was detained in Canada.

Yes, because there is an extradition treaty with Canada. The problem seems to me the unequal application of the law, since there are many companies that did the same and were not prosecuted. But the case itself seems pretty open and shut.

I feel as though you are proving my point: US jurisdiction covers most of the world. I'll grant you China isn't going to extradite one of their own citizens to the US, but they'd probably extradite a European without hesitation.

Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions

#109

Post by iamcorpix »

tadfisher wrote: post #42
iamcorpix wrote: post #8

Haha, this is why I am using Unlicense license for almost everything. Licenses create unnecessary fuzz. As a technician I have no interest in them

It's my cursory understanding that the Unlicense is equivalent to "© iamcorpix, All rights reserved" in jurisdictions that don't have a legal mechanism to completely disclaim copyright (e.g. the United States). Essentially, you can dedicate your copyright interest to the public domain, but you will always retain the ability to revoke that dedication as the original author of the work. It's much easier to just use MIT…

No, it is equivalent to "you can do anything with this, I don't care". So, it is public domain.

Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions

#110

Post by torstenvl »

3np wrote: post #86
torstenvl wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving one counterexample is sufficient to refute a categorical rule. Additionally, the fact that the code in question is hosted on GitHub (U.S.), a site owned by Microsoft (U.S.), and specifically how it came to be in Debian (U.S.) (started by Ian Murdock (U.S.) and assets held by Software in the Public Interest, Inc. (U.S.)) makes the U.S. an appropriate counterexample. Russia (home of the author of the software in…

> Additionally, the fact that the code in question is hosted on GitHub (U.S.), a site owned by Microsoft (U.S.), and specifically how it came to be in Debian (U.S.) (started by Ian Murdock (U.S.) and assets held by Software in the Public Interest, Inc. (U.S.)) makes the U.S. an appropriate counterexample. That is indeed useful context and answers my question. My snark in the original still stands as it happens elsewh…

> I just want some autonomy and human rights

You're talking to Americans on an American website about how bad you think America is, and nobody is threatening to send your relatives to Xinjiang for it, so I feel pretty confident your human rights aren't being violated.

Post reply on HN