The /bin/true Command and Copyright (2009) • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by smallnamespace » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 10:29 PM UTC

paulddraper wrote: post #19

smallnamespace wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright notices are useful the same way written contracts are: you legally do not need a notice (written contract) to establish copyright protection (enter into a contract), but if a dispute arises it helps establish the fact that the user was notified (the other party agreed to this contract). A question of 'law' vs 'facts'

Those aren't at all analogous. The automatic state for content is "protected by copyright," unless a different arrangement is made. The automatic state for contract terms is "not agreed to," unless a different arrangement is made. tl;dr You need proof (written or otherwise) that a contact happened; not so with copyright protection.

Oral contracts are legal and valid, yet most people write down their contracts for good, practical reasons outside of strict legality.

Same goes for copyright notices. For example, the notice makes it hard for a violator to use a negligence defense, effectively increasing the penalty for violations.

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

#42

Post by st_goliath » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 10:30 PM UTC

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.

> a waste of time because lawyers' answers are always "it depends".

Sorry for the little OT rant, but I'll have to object to that. That's IMO less of a lawyer thing, and more a "asking a field expert a generic question and expecting an immediate, brief answer" kind of thing.

In my experience, if you straight up ask any field expert, be it a lawyer, a doctor, an engineer, etc... a vague, but obviously case specific question, the real experts will rather try to point out that they lack necessary background information and that the underlying subject matter is not that simple ("It depends", "I'd have to look into this", "Well uhmmm, possibly/maybe/yes/kind of, but...", "It's not that simple").

If you're not particularly familiar with some subject matter, it is kind of hard to gauge that the "simple question" might be very vague, maybe confuse some subject matter and might be edging on a very complex topic.

I take it most people here have some sort of programming background? Just try to remember the last family gathering where someone started pestering you about their computer problems, or tried to start small talk about something they picked up in the headlines. Or maybe a meeting with management where you were asked a "but couldn't you just [simply]...." kind of question (or even worse: "exactly how long will this take?") and they tried to press you for a swift, immediate answer.

From my experience so far, I'd even go further and suggest to be skeptical of any "expert" who has a habit of confidently answering briefly and to the point.

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

#43

Post by pbhjpbhj » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 10:34 PM UTC

Miiko wrote: post #31

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 ;)

No. You can copy without copy-and-paste. But, a blank line isn't enough to be a creative work.

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

#44

Post by pbhjpbhj » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 10:37 PM UTC

IgorPartola wrote: post #5

Well damn. I guess I can’t use blank lines in my code anymore. This is going to be rough. Also are there any copyright koans? As in a copyright notice that copyrights itself?

Just copy them from public domain works! Or, come up with the independently - an absolute defence to copyright infringement.

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

#45

Post by amacbride » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 10:53 PM UTC

“Note that there is one less blank line here; it has been replaced by the #! line. But otherwise it is identical. Sun has merely passed on the copyright notice. I wonder if Sun has written permission from AT&T to use blank lines in their code?”

Fun fact: SVR4 was a joint AT&T/Sun project, so this was a SunOS file originally — I believe the “SMI” in the #ident line stands for “Sun Microsystems Inc.” and was a standard feature of all our SCCS identifiers.

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

#46

Post by viseztrance » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 11:09 PM UTC

> The /bin/true (or /usr/bin/true) command is now nearly obsolete, because most extant shells now have a builtin "true" command. But it's still useful occasionally, for various silly reasons [...]

This make it sound like this is useless, but I disagree. For example, recently I had some games crash because they couldn't find pulseaudio, and making a symlink from pulseaudio to /bin/true fixed my issue (and yes, they had sound). So there are certainly legitimate uses for it.

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

#47

Post by bdowling » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 11:16 PM UTC

st_goliath wrote: post #42

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.

> a waste of time because lawyers' answers are always "it depends". Sorry for the little OT rant, but I'll have to object to that. That's IMO less of a lawyer thing, and more a "asking a field expert a generic question and expecting an immediate, brief answer" kind of thing. In my experience, if you straight up ask any field expert, be it a lawyer, a doctor, an engineer, etc... a vague, but obviously case specific qu…

You're right. I am a lawyer, so you'd think I'd be more careful. I should have written "lawyers' answers are usually 'it depends'". You know, because it depends.

#48

Post by jzwinck » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 11:19 PM UTC

viseztrance wrote: post #46

> The /bin/true (or /usr/bin/true) command is now nearly obsolete, because most extant shells now have a builtin "true" command. But it's still useful occasionally, for various silly reasons [...] This make it sound like this is useless, but I disagree. For example, recently I had some games crash because they couldn't find pulseaudio, and making a symlink from pulseaudio to /bin/true fixed my issue (and yes, they ha…

Instead of a symlink to true you could have made an empty script.

#49

Post by NullPrefix » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 11:22 PM UTC

I would like to point out the obvious fact, which is newline characters. Even if those empty lines were empty, they still had \n's , maybe \r's too.

#50

Post by CuriousCosmic » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 11:37 PM UTC

Thiez wrote: post #38

bdowling wrote: post #34

Earlier 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?

That's the catch though isn't it? It's only wilful infringement if there was intent. Just because you don't know the law, that doesn't make it allowed but it does make it unintentional.

A license notice provides a clear explanation of the rights and responsibilities of the user. This dissuades most any notion of "lack of intent" as the restrictions are put in your face from the start.