And The Award For Most Legally-Encumbered “Hello World� Program ...
 

<http://www.zdnet.com/blog/howlett/kicking-off-the-new-year-at-oracle/3174>

Re: And The Award For Most Legally-Encumbered “Hello World” Program ...
 

On Jun 2, 4:12*am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/howlett/kicking-off-the-new-year-at-oracle/...>

It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
thing, isn't it?

Re: And The Award For Most Legally-Encumbered “Hello World� Program ...
 

In message
<9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17ee4@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Paul
Cager wrote:

> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
> thing, isn't it?

It would if the code were worth copyrighting.

Re: And The Award For Most Legally-Encumbered “Hello World” Program ...
 

On 6/2/2011 2:11 AM, Paul Cager wrote:
> On Jun 2, 4:12 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/howlett/kicking-off-the-new-year-at-oracle/...>
>
> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
> thing, isn't it?

yep, looks like BSD...

it is actually a bit lame that the article is making a big scare-tactic
like fuss over a BSD header-comment, which is damn near one of the most
free options next to Public Domain...


now, more LOLZ would have been if someone had included the entirety of
the GPLv3 in a programs' header comments...

and, yes, GPL would be a bit more legally encumbering than BSD is...

Re: And The Award For Most Legally-Encumbered “Hello World” Program ...
 

On Jun 2, 11:42*am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message
> <9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Paul
>
> Cager wrote:
> > It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
> > thing, isn't it?
>
> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.

You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
license.

Re: And The Award For Most Legally-Encumbered “Hello World� Program ...
 

In message
<5b0642c5-0634-4b8b-98fc-e9bfcbba1064@b42g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Paul
Cager wrote:

> On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
>> In message
>> <9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Paul
>>
>> Cager wrote:
>> > It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
>> > thing, isn't it?
>>
>> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.
>
> You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
> license.

What is the licence for?

Re: And The Award For Most Legally-Encumbered “Hello World” Program ...
 

On Jun 2, 1:08*pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message
> <5b0642c5-0634-4b8b-98fc-e9bfcbba1...@b42g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Paul
>
> Cager wrote:
> > On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
> >> In message
> >> <9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Paul
>
> >> Cager wrote:
> >> > It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
> >> > thing, isn't it?
>
> >> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.
>
> > You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
> > license.
>
> What is the licence for?

The license grants us permission to use the code. Without a license we
could be breaching copyright by redistributing it. But you're a free
software developer so I assume you knew that anyway. I'm not sure I
follow what point you are trying to make.

Re: And The Award For Most Legally-Encumbered “Hello World” Program ...
 

On 11-06-02 08:34 AM, Paul Cager wrote:
> On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> In message
>> <9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Paul
>>
>> Cager wrote:
>>> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
>>> thing, isn't it?
>>
>> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.
>
> You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
> license.

Who's talking about a license? Oracle is attempting to copyright that
HelloWorld code. Strictly speaking they didn't even have to include that
"Copyright (c) 1995, 2008, Oracle..." bit, but since they did their
intentions are very clear. They also refer to themselves as the
copyright holder a little bit further down the blurb.

Everything about that boilerplate has to do with copyright.

AHS

Re: And The Award For Most Legally-Encumbered “Hello World” Program ...
 

On 11-06-02 06:21 PM, BGB wrote:
> On 6/2/2011 1:22 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> On 11-06-02 08:34 AM, Paul Cager wrote:
>>> On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
>>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>>> In message
>>>> <9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> Cager wrote:
>>>>> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
>>>>> thing, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.
>>>
>>> You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
>>> license.
>>
>> Who's talking about a license? Oracle is attempting to copyright that
>> HelloWorld code. Strictly speaking they didn't even have to include that
>> "Copyright (c) 1995, 2008, Oracle..." bit, but since they did their
>> intentions are very clear. They also refer to themselves as the
>> copyright holder a little bit further down the blurb.
>>
>> Everything about that boilerplate has to do with copyright.
>>
>
> but, it is worth noting a few things:
> the text appears to be a fairly standard 3-clause BSD-style license;
> it is generally considered to be proper withing FOSS circles to put such
> a notice in *every* source file, such that it remains clear at all
> points how the code in question is licensed.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license
>
> note the section on the "New BSD License", which as may be noted, has
> very similar text and style (about the only differences I see is that
> Oracle inserted its name in the appropriate spots, labeled "<copyright
> holder>" in the aforementioned license).
>
> generally, an absence of such a notice is (implicitly) meant to imply
> that it owned by the original owner, with all rights reserved except
> under the permission of the original author, until 80 years following
> said author's death (under which point it goes into public domain).
>
> putting such a notice in a file thus states that a person is free to use
> said "hello world" program under the stated terms (which include copying
> and the creation of derivative works, ...). or effectively that the
> original author is waiving some of their legal rights.
>
> yes, one can argue that it is a little silly to bother with this for a
> "hello world" program, but there is no obvious malice or ill-intention
> on Oracle's part for having done so.
>
Again, not discussing licensing yet, copyright applies to *original*
works. Regardless of the exact mechanics of a copyright coming into
force in various jurisdictions, Oracle can NOT copyright HelloWorld in
any language, not to mention a bunch of other obvious and much-used code.

I don't think they are malicious either. I simply think they have
ignorant lawyers and cowed developers.

AHS

Re: And The Award For Most Legally-Encumbered “Hello World” Program ...
 

On 6/2/2011 3:19 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> On 11-06-02 06:21 PM, BGB wrote:
>> On 6/2/2011 1:22 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>> On 11-06-02 08:34 AM, Paul Cager wrote:
>>>> On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-
>>>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>>>> In message
>>>>> <9b584a36-f160-4e01-8e2f-ca3f83f17...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> Cager wrote:
>>>>>> It looks to be the standard 3-clause BSD license to me - that's a good
>>>>>> thing, isn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>> It would if the code were worth copyrighting.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and a
>>>> license.
>>>
>>> Who's talking about a license? Oracle is attempting to copyright that
>>> HelloWorld code. Strictly speaking they didn't even have to include that
>>> "Copyright (c) 1995, 2008, Oracle..." bit, but since they did their
>>> intentions are very clear. They also refer to themselves as the
>>> copyright holder a little bit further down the blurb.
>>>
>>> Everything about that boilerplate has to do with copyright.
>>>
>>
>> but, it is worth noting a few things:
>> the text appears to be a fairly standard 3-clause BSD-style license;
>> it is generally considered to be proper withing FOSS circles to put such
>> a notice in *every* source file, such that it remains clear at all
>> points how the code in question is licensed.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license
>>
>> note the section on the "New BSD License", which as may be noted, has
>> very similar text and style (about the only differences I see is that
>> Oracle inserted its name in the appropriate spots, labeled "<copyright
>> holder>" in the aforementioned license).
>>
>> generally, an absence of such a notice is (implicitly) meant to imply
>> that it owned by the original owner, with all rights reserved except
>> under the permission of the original author, until 80 years following
>> said author's death (under which point it goes into public domain).
>>
>> putting such a notice in a file thus states that a person is free to use
>> said "hello world" program under the stated terms (which include copying
>> and the creation of derivative works, ...). or effectively that the
>> original author is waiving some of their legal rights.
>>
>> yes, one can argue that it is a little silly to bother with this for a
>> "hello world" program, but there is no obvious malice or ill-intention
>> on Oracle's part for having done so.
>>
> Again, not discussing licensing yet, copyright applies to *original*
> works. Regardless of the exact mechanics of a copyright coming into
> force in various jurisdictions, Oracle can NOT copyright HelloWorld in
> any language, not to mention a bunch of other obvious and much-used code.
>
> I don't think they are malicious either. I simply think they have
> ignorant lawyers and cowed developers.
>

actually, it depends on how one defines "original".

AFAIK the usual working definition of original is that it was originally
written by a certain person.

given a person can easily write out a hello world program without
needing to go any copy code from any other source, it classifies as
original (as opposed to a derived work, which would incorporate code
from another source, say if one copy/pasted the "Hello World" string
from another such example).


hence, I can go type out, say (in my own original / creatively-designed
HLL):
import bs.io;
void main(string[] args)
{
printf("Hello World\n");
}

and, since I was the one to write it (say, as an example for this usenet
post), legally I can claim copyright on it.

granted, this does not mean that it is "original" in the sense that it
involves any non-trivial behavior or creative thought (but, AFAIK, this
is not the sense of "original" that copyright deals with).


or such...