Author: Will Singleton
Date: 15:26:30 03/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 21, 2000 at 14:05:11, KarinsDad wrote: >On March 21, 2000 at 13:07:05, Will Singleton wrote: > >[snip] >> >>Why change a line? Your argument is toward ownership, not authorship. The >>pertinent question is, given an open source program with or without >>restrictions, at what point does the program become a new product? > >Exactly. If you use the word product, it implies some form of selling. Let's use >the word "beast". > >Given an open source program with or without restrictions, at what point does >the program become a new beast? > >My opinion is that it becomes a new beast the moment a line of code is modified >(hence, the reason for versions in software). Okay, yes, but if I understand you, your argument still addresses ownership issues. George is asking about authorship. Anyone can write or modify something and claim to be the author, without ownership. IBM owns Deep Blue (I guess), but Hsu et al are the authors, and always will be. >However, given the assumption of a >program without explicit restrictions or permissions implies that people CANNOT >do whatever they want with the software, including changing ownership and name. >The original author has implicit copyright rights (at least in the U.S.) which >cannot be randomly ignored. > >The source for a program with explicit restrictions or permissions implies that >any restrictions have to be maintained in order for a second party to modify the >program. If an explicit restriction is that the name has to stay the same, so be >it. If an explicit restriction is that the original author must be given credit, >so be it. If an explicit permission is given that anyone can do anything they >wish (including changing ownership and name), so be it. However, to do this, the >original author must give explicit permission. > >The original author is also the owner of all versions of an open source with the >implicit implication (since it is open) that any second party can modify the >code (download the code, etc.), they just cannot resell it or claim it to be >theirs UNLESS the original author also gave explicit permission to do these >and/or other things with the source. > >If you check out open source on the net, people often give blanket permission >for other people to use their source. An example of this is a sorting algorithm. >However, people who take out the time to write a large amount of source for a >chess program rarely take the time out to (or decide to) give blanket permission >(e.g. Crafty); presumably since they spent so much time on it in the first >place. > >KarinsDad :)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.