- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
It pleases me no end that there are 2,013 2013's.
Admin
It displeases me to no end that it starts with a copyright notice, but it turns out to be OSS.
Admin
open‐source code still is under copyright; the copyright holder just makes it available under an open license. the copyright holder can even sell non‐free licenses for open‐source software, for example if an open‐source license requires attribution and someone is ready to pay to use the software under a license that doesn’t require attribution
what wouldn’t be appropriate to put here is “all rights reserved”, since they aren’t. for example, the rights to redistribution and modification are explicitly granted by the GPL, so they are not reserved
Admin
I'll admit that "hey, that could be actually 2 013 2013s", and there were. (There were far more than two point oh one three of them.)
(Sorry.)
Admin
The copyright notice is correct. You can't license something under GNU GPL unless you hold the copyright - if there was no copyright it would be public domain and the license would be irrelevant. The instructions on using the GPL at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html explicitly say to include a copyright notice. "All rights reserved" isn't correct, or at least is confusing, as they're clearly not reserving "all" rights.
Admin
While waiting for someone to moderate @no, I'll just observe that all OSS and also all Free Software are of necessity copyright. And so yes, copyleft relies on copyright to function correctly.
Admin
If that was autogenerated, maybe a format specifier went wrong, e. g., instead of "placeholder for number; year", there was "placeholder for how many repeated values; year"...
Admin
Makes it easy to update for a new year every year. Just good programming technique...
Admin
I am guessing the file was edited using vi with:
2013 i 2013 instead of i 2013
Admin
I was expected 2012 of them, since that year is missing.
Admin
Maybe Oracle is trying to say they have 2,013 affiliates? Not sure about that part, but it looks to me like Watson is saying TRWTF is GPL.
Admin
Oracle could no longer see the future, for they were trapped in Groundhog Day.
Admin
This is why open-source/free software is called "copyleft" They require copyright to work. You see, copyright basically marks everything as "all rights reserved" which mean you only get the rights embodied in copyright law. But FOSS licenses let you do more - if you accept the license. So the GPL gives you extra rights to create derivative works and do stuff with the software, but in order to do that, you have to agree to the GPL. It's basically saying "This software is copyrighted, but under this license you can gain additional rights".
This also means you do NOT have to every agree to an FOSS license - because if you don't, it reverts to standard copyright. For software, standard copyright lets you copy software in order to run it, for example. So using an FOSS licensed program is not an issue. But if you want to distribute, create derivative works, etc., you can gain additional rights by agreeing to the FOSS license.
Hence why people call it "copyleft" - you need copyright but it also exploits copyright to achieve its goals.
Without copyright protection, all FOSS licenses lose their protection. After all, without copyright default of "all rights reserved" the additional rights you might get from the GPL or other license might not be necessary. If you get rid of copyright completely, it means you don't need to agree to the GPL to redistribute, create derivative works, etc.
Admin
One wonders if this header was vibe-coded. AI has been known to do this when it creates stuff, after all.
Or maybe Oracle found a way to prevent AI from properly crawling their code.
Admin
I've accidentally repeated text in vim like that... not sure how I even did it, but I'd end up with 5+ copies of whatever line I was on. fortunately 'u'ndo can revert it...but I have accidentally saved after doing that and had to go clean it up by hand.
Admin
copyleft has a specific meaning, rather than just meaning FOSS. a copyleft license stipulates that if a derivative work is distributed, it must be done under a compatible license that preserves specific terms of original copyleft license
copyleft is infectious like that; modifications of such a work, if redistributed, must also be distributed under a copyleft license. obtaining a program under the terms of the GPL (copyleft) and redistributing it under the MIT license (non‐copyleft) is a breach of the GPL
Admin
Re copyright and FOSS:
Right now I can't remember who it was (Stallman himself? Maybe Eric S. Raymond?) but back in the early days of the GPL someone used to write "Copyright XXXX, all rights reversed" as a pun on the "reserved" part of copyright.
So yeah, like everybody already said, you need copyright for FOSS licenses (or any license, I guess) to work.
Admin
Well, according to Wikipedia it was sent to Stallman, and it was "Copyleft", not "Copyright" (which is what triggered me to look it up):
'In 1984 or 1985, programmer Don Hopkins sent Richard Stallman a letter labeled "Copyleft—all rights reversed". Stallman chose the phrase to identify his free software method of distribution.'
Admin
You'd think Oracle would know about
SELECT DISTINCT; yeah, that doesn't instill confidence.Admin
No. In all Berne Convention countries, you don't need a copyright notice -- the author has the copyright by default. Copyright notices identify the owner (so you know who to contact for permission to copy), copyright date (so you know when the protection expires), and defeat "innocent infringement" claims (allowing the owner to get full damages in case of infringement).
Admin
I wonder if it's illegal to have an automatically updated copyright date on a website, then, since you'd be artificially extending your own copyright over something. If you make changes to the site or it contains dynamically generated content, sure, but a static site that automatically updates its copyright date every year would have to be illegal, right?
Also, I wonder why no one has yet legally attacked copyleft to try to detach it from its foundation in copyright and thus render it invalid. Is it because doing so would then instantly revert all open source content to "all rights reserved", making it illegal for anyone but its creator to use, and thus it would destroy the entire economy?
Admin
It's about permission to distribute, not copy.
Admin
"not sure how I even did it"
You used vim :trollface:
Admin
Actually 1994.
There are 106 lines but the first line only has fifteen 2013s and the last line only has three.
Admin
They said "if there was [sic] no copyright" not "if there was no copyright notice".
Admin
Ultimately, because that's difficult to do legally (the FSF were careful, and you can only bring the case if you have standing) and you'll definitely end up looking like a spiteful jerk for trying.