Subject: Re: Ethics o' Code-Liftin'

From: [email-masked] (Karl Boyken)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1993 14:15:04 -0800

Quinn says, basically (I lost the original post, so I'm paraphrasing), that 
the desire to copyright MOO code springs from idealism.  Then Allan Alford 
chimes in with, in part:

>Essentially, if your work has been 'published' under your name (even if
>you didn't get paid for it!), then you can sue for copyright violation
>if someone else reprints it.  I don't know if the Net counts as
>'published' (I'm sure it would hold up in court), but the fact is that
>you can put a 'copyright 1993 by Jane Doe' in with the 'don't heist this'
>message, and stand a fair chance of winning a suit.

This is idealism?  Dragging lawyers and copyright laws into MOOdom?  This is 
a meaning of the term 'idealism' that I'm unfamiliar with.

Okay.  Copyright your MOO code.  Hire a lawyer.  Drag MOOers into court.  
Drag Xerox, too, 'cause you'll have to make Xerox disclose the RL names of 
MOOers who swipe your code.  Great fun.  I'm sure it will make everyone 
really eager to use the code you've copyrighted.  People will flock to the 
MOOs for the chance to be sued.  Lawyers will, anyway--since the area has no 
precedent, it's bound to generate case after case, appeal after appeal, and 
tons o' lawyer's fees.

If this be idealism, then give me jaded cynicism any day.

Karl Boyken, system programmer, Dept. of Computer Science
303A MLH, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA  52242
voice:  319-335-2730   fax:  319-335-0627
Internet:  [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Sam Weber)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1993 22:11:25 -0800

>>if someone else reprints it.  ....
>
> .....

I'm afraid I'm losing my patience with this.  We are talking about people
stealing other people's code.  Yes, it is idealistic to think that
people will never steal other people's work.  But this is the real world,
and that's one of the things that the copyright laws are supposed to
prevent.  

I don't think much of people who steal other people's work, breaking 
the law.  And I have no sympathy with such a criminal who then protests
"How DARE you drag lawyers into this!"  Karl, if you don't want lawyers
involved, then don't try to steal other people's work.

*Sam catches his breath*

Now, a number of people have said that they would be honored if people
wanted to distribute their code.  This, of course, is quite reasonable,
and understandable.  However, I would ask these people understand that
someone else might feel differently. 

I have seen one mud where whose administrators encouraged harassment of
gays.  Isn't it reasonable that I wouldn't want my code to enhance such
a place? 

    -Sam Weber

---

From: [email-masked] (Ian McFarland)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 03:28:31 -0800

At  3:49 PM 11/18/93 -0800, Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>How about if someone just recreates the functionality of a piece of code,
>without lifting the actual source?  How do authors feel about protecting
>the look-and-feel of their MOO code?

That sounds a lot more reasonable, although it is still probably protected
by copyright. (I recommend people interested in the issues surrounding
interface copyright contact the League_for_Programming_Freedom @
[email-masked] for some well-written arguments against this kind of
copyright.)

My questions would be:

 o  Are they adding value in their modifications?

 o  Does theirs do something new?

If the answer is yes, then they are creating something new. Just because
the interface is the same doesn't mean that it's a copy. (Yes, they would
have benefitted from my design. The main question is did they do some
design of their own. I could then, of course, benefit from their design
improvements in the same manner.)

The Constitution of the United States states that the purpose of copyright
is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." This sort of
use is consistent with that, as are assurances that credit (whether
monitary or not) will be given to those making to effort to create original
work. 
[The stated purposes are similar elsewhere.]

If the answer is no, then there is little difference whether the code was
copied or just reverse-engineered. Who typed the code is not as important
as who created the code. (Seems obvious, but I mention it anyway.)

In this case I'd expect the community to use the original (and probably
superior) product anyway. (Of course I'm an optimist.)

-Ian McFarland

P.S. I personally _believe_ in looking at other people's code to learn how
to do things (in a general sense, at least). The design really consists of
the funtionality that the designer intended. If you can combine ideas and
algorhythms from the designs of others into a meaningful new creation,
well, that is part of what copyright is designed to encourage. Of course
new inspiration is the best... and credit for inspiration is always
appreciated.
--
#-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-#
| imf@netcom,com  or  [email-masked]                Jeste pivo, prosim! |
#-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-#

---

From: [email-masked] (Ian McFarland)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 11:33:17 -0800

At  9:30 AM 11/19/93 -362012, John William Chambless wrote:
>Just a little something to let the rest of us know what you want.
>Personally, I agree with the GNU-minded crowd, but I'll certainly
>honor the wishes of any other programmer re: their code.

Funny you should mention GNU. GNU *is* copyright, and they still distribute
everything for free. (Write to the eff and get their take on copyright.
[email-masked]? I think that's the address.)

[Let's not assume that people are going to ba taking people to court over
this. Please?]
--
#-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-#
| imf@netcom,com  or  [email-masked]                Jeste pivo, prosim! |
#-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-#

---

From: [email-masked] (Ian McFarland)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 11:31:25 -0800

At  7:37 AM 11/19/93 -0500, Jeff T.P. wrote:
>Original quote by Ian McFarland:
>
>Everyone planning on copyrighting their MOO-Code, stay away from my
>code.

Let me quietly point out to you here that the statement of mine you quoted
is an argument against copyright.

>I can't believe the "Idealism" here.  It's MINE MINE MINE.  Listen.  If
>you folks are so selfish that you have to copyright your code, and that
>you're so damn self-centered that you absolutely must have credit for
>your code even if you can't put a simple comment in yourself, then don't

>The Virtual society neither needs nor wants you greedy
>self-serving egotistical fools.
>
Thank you, Mr. Spokes-model for Virtual Society.

>The point is simple. . . yes, ethics dictates that we give credit, and
>ask the owner of the code for permission.

I'm glad we agree on that, at least.

>                                       ...However if you want to hinder
>the development of software by copyrighting it, then please seek
>employment at some backward company such a microsoft and program a new
>version of Windows.  We don't want your "contribution" to the Virtual
>society.  You're not worth the DBSpace you waste!
>
I didn't think most of us are suggesting that. We want to be asked, but I
think mnost of us would say yes with no hesitation.

>--Sorry to all those who feel they are important, but I know to many
>dedicated indiviuals who slave and work their lives away not for pride
>or money incentives, but rather because they are enjoying themselves.
>If you aren't enjoying yourself, then stop!  Duh.  
>
Look, the point is that, if people could make some money out of MOO-coding,
there would be that much more incentive to do it well. I'm pretty sure we
wouldn't have quite a number of useful things without copyright. Why act
like money debases everything. (See the comment about Dickens in a prior
post.)
I myself can't work on the code I've been creating, because I have to go to
'work' now. You know, for money. And I suppose you're independently
wealthy?

>I'm not saying that I take code without asking or without giving credit.
>I don't.  I'm saying that you people are such capitalist pigs that it
>makes even the most law-school intended students cringe.

Um, some of us are not asking for money.

>For those of you making a living by coding, I suggest you continue
>making money. . . that however means you stay on top of the Darwinian
>pile and continue to produce productive code and not sit back and let
>others surpass your "all supreme" works while you collect your
>royalties.

If you really feel that way, I suggest you stop using copyrighted software,
as a matter of principal. (You might find that hard to do though.)
--
#-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-#
| imf@netcom,com  or  [email-masked]                Jeste pivo, prosim! |
#-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-#