Timeline for Copyrighted code with copyright notice
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 2013 at 2:30 | comment | added | aroth | @svick - I agree, this is likely in the gray area. Probably it's somewhere between a college professor xeroxing a chapter out of a textbook and distributing copies to his students (probably okay) and a college professor xeroxing a chapter out of a textbook and submitting it to a publisher under his own name (probably not okay)? But I wouldn't go so far as to label it illegal or imply that it's immoral/bad behavior. In any case, I think the real issue is that current copyright law is woefully inadequate/broken in light of modern technological advancements; it needs serious reform. | |
| Feb 19, 2013 at 13:26 | comment | added | svick | @aroth But using code is not the same as republishing it under CC-BY-SA. And I agree there are limits, for example, I sometimes include quotes of copyrighted works in my SE posts. But I do think copying a whole non-trivial class is beyond that limit. | |
| Feb 19, 2013 at 13:13 | comment | added | aroth | @svick - I think you may be coming down too harshly here. The copyright notice makes it clear that the copyrighted work is an entire book, not just the code in question. Reproducing just that code would not likely to be ruled as infringing on the book's copyright. Moreover, the disclaimer in the copyright block strongly implies that the authors of the book do not mind if people use their code, provided that they (the authors) are not held liable should anything bad happen. | |
| Feb 19, 2013 at 13:07 | comment | added | aroth | Your question lives on in Google's web cache. Or at least it will, for a time. Unfortunately it appears that there were no comments or answers against it at the time it was cached. | |
| Feb 16, 2013 at 13:44 | comment | added | konijn | Greetings, if you were to refactor the class Hand out of PlayDeck, and just pust that code, I am sure we could review it without having access to the copyrighted part. | |
| Feb 16, 2013 at 12:42 | comment | added | svick | What you've done is most likely illegal and I really don't think we want to support that kind of behavior. It's too bad that effort was wasted, but I do think deleting the question was the best approach here. Besides, it seems you did get the chance to read the feedback others gave you. | |
| Feb 16, 2013 at 6:30 | history | answered | Gary | CC BY-SA 3.0 |