«

To: Arne Vajhøj
From: "Gene Wirchenko" <gene.wirchenko@1:261/38.remove-sao-this>

To: Arne Vajhoj
From: Gene Wirchenko <>

On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 20:44:26 -0400, Arne Vajhoj <> wrote:

>On 8/3/2012 8:58 AM, wrote:
>> Does the code you posted have a copyright.
>
>It is expected that code posted to usenet is free for
>everybody to use for whatever. Otherwise there were
>not really any point in posting it.

Nasty scenario: Get someone to use copyrighted code, and then sue
them for it. Using a computing technique (modularisation), the poster and the
suer may be different individuals.

Copyrighted code posted here is still copyrighted.

>A lawyer would probably fell down from the chair
>hearing about such "expectations", but ...

Well, yes.

OTOH, if the code is short, I think that that would weaken any
argument. Most anything posted here (attachments excepted) would be short.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

-+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
+ Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/3
-+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/3
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

To: Gene Wirchenko
From: "=?windows-1252?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?="
<=?windows-1252?q?arne_vajh=f8j?=@1:261/38.remove-p82-this>

To: Gene Wirchenko
From: =?windows-1252?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= <>

On 8/5/2012 9:39 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 20:44:26 -0400, Arne Vajhoj <>
> wrote:
>> On 8/3/2012 8:58 AM, wrote:
>>> Does the code you posted have a copyright.
>>
>> It is expected that code posted to usenet is free for
>> everybody to use for whatever. Otherwise there were
>> not really any point in posting it.
>
> Nasty scenario: Get someone to use copyrighted code, and then sue
> them for it. Using a computing technique (modularisation), the poster
> and the suer may be different individuals.

Strange things has happened before.

> Copyrighted code posted here is still copyrighted.

Obviously code posted here is copyrighted.

The question is whether posting to usenet implicit provides a "permissible
license".

Web fora where users has to register can require an explicit accept.

SO:

You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network is
perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange under the Creative
Commons Attribution Share Alike license. You grant Stack Exchange the perpetual
and irrevocable right and license to use, copy, cache, publish, display,
distribute, modify, create derivative works and store such Subscriber Content
and to allow others to do so in any medium now known or hereinafter developed
(rContent License%) in order to provide the Services, even if such Subscriber
Content has been contributed and subsequently removed by You.

E-E:

By registering with Experts Exchange and posting Your Content on the Site, you
hereby: (i) grant Experts Exchange a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable,
unrestricted, transferable, fully sub-licensable, worldwide, royalty-free
license to use, distribute, display, reproduce, perform, modify, adapt,
publish, translate and create derivative works from Your Content in any form,
media or technology, whether now-known or hereafter developed;

I would argue that usenet posts via tradition, logic and similarity comes with
an implicit license for free usage by anyone.

Arne

-+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
+ Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/3
-+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/3
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

To: =?windows-1252?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=
From: "Mike Winter" <mike.winter@1:261/38.remove-p82-this>

To: =?windows-1252?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=
From: Mike Winter <>

On 07/08/2012 00:30, Arne Vajhoj wrote:

> Obviously code posted here is copyrighted.
>
> The question is whether posting to usenet implicit
> provides a "permissible license".
>
> Web fora where users has to register can require an
> explicit accept.
>
> SO:
>
> You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network
> is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange under the
> Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. You grant Stack
> Exchange the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to use, copy,
> cache, publish, display, distribute, modify, create derivative works and
> store such Subscriber Content and to allow others to do so in any medium
> now known or hereinafter developed (rContent License%) in order to
> provide the Services, even if such Subscriber Content has been
> contributed and subsequently removed by You.
>
> E-E:
>
> By registering with Experts Exchange and posting Your Content on the
> Site, you hereby: (i) grant Experts Exchange a non-exclusive, perpetual,
> irrevocable, unrestricted, transferable, fully sub-licensable,
> worldwide, royalty-free license to use, distribute, display, reproduce,
> perform, modify, adapt, publish, translate and create derivative works
> from Your Content in any form, media or technology, whether now-known or
> hereafter developed;
>
> I would argue that usenet posts via tradition, logic and
> similarity comes with an implicit license for free
> usage by anyone.

If I'm not mistaken, those sorts of licenses are merely to permit sites that
retain user submissions to store that content and resend it others in some form
(usually forums) without infringing on copyright. It doesn't automatically
allow other users to use that content as it's the site that is granted the
license--the work isn't placed into the Public Domain.

Of course, these licenses do mean that such websites could, in principle, take
someones hard work and use it themselves even though the original creator
retains ownership.

I would argue that the "to allow others" phrase in the Stack Exchange terms is
intended to refer only to third-parties that work with them to provide or
develop its services rather than others generally, but it's ill-defined here
and could extend to anyone SE deems applicable.

Kind regards,
Mike


--
Michael Winter -- Not a lawyer!
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

-+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
+ Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/3
-+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/3
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

To: =?windows-1252?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=
From: "Gene Wirchenko" <gene.wirchenko@1:261/38.remove-p82-this>

To: =?windows-1252?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=
From: Gene Wirchenko <>

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:30:54 -0400, Arne Vajhoj <> wrote:

>On 8/5/2012 9:39 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:

[snip]

>> Copyrighted code posted here is still copyrighted.
>
>Obviously code posted here is copyrighted.
>
>The question is whether posting to usenet implicit
>provides a "permissible license".
>
>Web fora where users has to register can require an
>explicit accept.
>
>SO:
>
>You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network
>is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange under the
>Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. You grant Stack

If I post code that I do not have the copyright for, I can not
give that right. I can agree with it all I want, but that is not the same
thing.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

-+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
+ Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/3
-+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/3
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

To: Mike Winter
From: "Lew" <lew@1:261/38.remove-p82-this>

To: Mike Winter
From: Lew <>

On Monday, August 6, 2012 5:07:18 PM UTC-7, Mike Winter wrote:
> On 07/08/2012 00:30, Arne Vajhoj wrote:
>> Obviously code posted here is copyrighted.
>>
>> The question is whether posting to usenet implicit
>> provides a "permissible license".
>>
>> Web fora where users has to register can require an
>> explicit accept.
>
>> SO:
>>
>> You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network
> > is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange under the
> > Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. You grant Stack
> > Exchange the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to use, copy,
> > cache, publish, display, distribute, modify, create derivative works and
> > store such Subscriber Content and to allow others to do so in any medium
> > now known or hereinafter developed (rContent License%) in order to
> > provide the Services, even if such Subscriber Content has been
> > contributed and subsequently removed by You.
> ...

>> I would argue that usenet posts via tradition, logic and
>> similarity comes with an implicit license for free
>> usage by anyone.

>
> If I'm not mistaken, those sorts of licenses are merely to permit sites
> that retain user submissions to store that content and resend it others
> in some form (usually forums) without infringing on copyright. It
> doesn't automatically allow other users to use that content as it's the
> site that is granted the license--the work isn't placed into the Public
> Domain.
>
> Of course, these licenses do mean that such websites could, in
> principle, take someones hard work and use it themselves even though the
> original creator retains ownership.
>

The Creative Commons License explicitly allows that, yes.

> I would argue that the "to allow others" phrase in the Stack Exchange
> terms is intended to refer only to third-parties that work with them to
> provide or develop its services rather than others generally, but it's
> ill-defined [sic] here and could extend to anyone SE deems applicable.

You'd be mistaken.

Stack Exchange explicitly specifies the Creative Commons Attribution Share
Alike license.

That's not ill defined and extends to everyone irrespective of whom SE deems
applicable. It explicitly allows everyone access, not just SE. If they hadn't
intended that, they wouldn't have specified a license that explicitly exists
for the very purpose of extending universal access.

--
Lew

-+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
+ Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/3
-+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/3
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

To: Gene Wirchenko
From: "Lew" <lew@1:261/38.remove-qhs-this>

To: Gene Wirchenko
From: Lew <>

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> If I post code that I do not have the copyright for, I can not
> give that right. I can agree with it all I want, but that is not the
> same thing.

That's not the point. The point is that if you contribute code under that
agreement, and you do not hold copyright, *you* are liable for the
infringement, not the site.

--
Lew

-+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
+ Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/3
-+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/3
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

To: Lew
From: "Gene Wirchenko" <gene.wirchenko@1:261/38.remove-qhs-this>

To: Lew
From: Gene Wirchenko <>

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:41:06 -0700 (PDT), Lew <> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> If I post code that I do not have the copyright for, I can not
>> give that right. I can agree with it all I want, but that is not the
>> same thing.
>
>That's not the point. The point is that if you contribute code under
>that agreement, and you do not hold copyright, *you* are liable
>for the infringement, not the site.

So? The site is not going to get the right.

This could lead to trouble if a programmer posts part of an
employer's app, say a useful function.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

-+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
+ Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/3
-+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/3
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

To: Gene Wirchenko
From: "Lew" <lew@1:261/38.remove-qhs-this>

To: Gene Wirchenko
From: Lew <>

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>> If I post code that I do not have the copyright for, I can not
>>> give that right. I can agree with it all I want, but that is not the
>>> same thing.
>
>>That's not the point. The point is that if you contribute code under
>>that agreement, and you do not hold copyright, *you* are liable
>>for the infringement, not the site.
>
> So? The site is not going to get the right.
>
> This could lead to trouble if a programmer posts part of an
> employer's app, say a useful function.

Trouble for whom?

That's the point.

The site's rules mean they aren't the ones who get in trouble.

It isn't about whether the site gets the right, it's about whether they get the
liability.

That explains why they make that rule. What more are you looking for?

--
Lew

-+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
+ Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/3
-+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/3
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

To: Lew
From: "Mike Winter" <mike.winter@1:261/38.remove-qhs-this>

To: Lew
From: Mike Winter <>

On 07/08/2012 19:39, Lew wrote:
> On Monday, August 6, 2012 5:07:18 PM UTC-7, Mike Winter wrote:
>> I would argue that the "to allow others" phrase in the Stack Exchange
>> terms is intended to refer only to third-parties that work with them to
>> provide or develop its services rather than others generally, but it's
>> ill-defined [sic] here and could extend to anyone SE deems applicable.
>
> You'd be mistaken.
>
> Stack Exchange explicitly specifies the Creative Commons Attribution
> Share Alike license.

Unfortunately, as it was late I hadn't taken the time to read that license so
you are of course correct with regard to its implications.

--
Mike Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

-+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
+ Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/3
-+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/3
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

To: Lew
From: "Gene Wirchenko" <gene.wirchenko@1:261/38.remove-qhs-this>

To: Lew
From: Gene Wirchenko <>

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 14:51:52 -0700 (PDT), Lew <> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> Lew wrote:
>>>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> If I post code that I do not have the copyright for, I can not
>>>> give that right. I can agree with it all I want, but that is not the
>>>> same thing.
>>
>>>That's not the point. The point is that if you contribute code under
>>>that agreement, and you do not hold copyright, *you* are liable
>>>for the infringement, not the site.
>>
>> So? The site is not going to get the right.
>>
>> This could lead to trouble if a programmer posts part of an
>> employer's app, say a useful function.
>
>Trouble for whom?
>
>That's the point.
>
>The site's rules mean they aren't the ones who get in trouble.

They could be the recipient of a cease-and-desist order.

>It isn't about whether the site gets the right, it's about whether they
>get the liability.
>
>That explains why they make that rule. What more are you looking for?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

-+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
+ Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/3
-+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/3
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24