[dash-dev] IP Cleanliness question

[Aaron Digulla]

Hello,

I've stumbled over one of these corner cases: I copied 7 lines of code
from stackoverflow.com (http://stackoverflow.com/a/3758880/34088)

The code isn't an OSS project, it's not under a specific license and I
feel that it's not worth the effort to run this through the standard IP
process.

What are the rules when you copy a code example from a blog? I tried to
find some guidelines in the committer rules and IP process, etc, but
everything there is more suitable for "we want to fork some big OSS
project".

Regards,

[Wayne Beaton]

The copied code is intellectual property and as such is subject to the
Eclipse IP Due Diligence process.

It can only be distributed from eclipse.org (e.g. a source code
repository) if we have clear license from the author to do so.

Yes, it's a small bit of code, but the full IP process still applies.

The easiest way to make this work is to ask the original author to
contribute the code as an attachment on a Bugzilla record with the
following assertions in the comment:

"I authored 100% the content they are contributing; have the rights to
donate the content to EPL; and contribute the content under the EPL."

With this in place, you can add the code into the repository, flip the
"iplog+" flag, and be off to the races.

Alternatively, I think we can make the case that Stack Overflow
contributions are CC-licensed [1] and treat the code similar to a
third-party library. However, I believe that license compatibility will
be complicated.

HTH,

Wayne

[1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Post by Aaron Digulla
Hello,
I've stumbled over one of these corner cases: I copied 7 lines of code
from stackoverflow.com (http://stackoverflow.com/a/3758880/34088)
The code isn't an OSS project, it's not under a specific license and I
feel that it's not worth the effort to run this through the standard IP
process.
What are the rules when you copy a code example from a blog? I tried to
find some guidelines in the committer rules and IP process, etc, but
everything there is more suitable for "we want to fork some big OSS
project".
Regards,

[Aaron Digulla]

Post by Wayne Beaton
Alternatively, I think we can make the case that Stack Overflow
contributions are CC-licensed [1] and treat the code similar to a
third-party library. However, I believe that license compatibility will
be complicated.

Here is some material to support this:
http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/

The text is a bit complicated; the four rules apply if you make a copy
of the site under a different domain. Since source code isn't HTML, the
only rule that applies is probably #2 which boils down to "add a link to
the question/answer where you got that code from"

How about I open an IP request so the lawyers can give a nod to the
rule? This would create a simple, safe solution for all Eclipse
developers because I bet that I wasn't the first one to wonder - I was
just the first one who dared to ask :-)

Regards,

Post by Wayne Beaton
[1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Post by Aaron Digulla
Hello,
I've stumbled over one of these corner cases: I copied 7 lines of code
from stackoverflow.com (http://stackoverflow.com/a/3758880/34088)
The code isn't an OSS project, it's not under a specific license and I
feel that it's not worth the effort to run this through the standard IP
process.
What are the rules when you copy a code example from a blog? I tried to
find some guidelines in the committer rules and IP process, etc, but
everything there is more suitable for "we want to fork some big OSS
project".
Regards,

--
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Explore Eclipse Projects <http://www.eclipse.org/projects>
_______________________________________________
dash-dev mailing list
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dash-dev

[Wayne Beaton]

Sounds like a plan.

Wayne

Post by Aaron Digulla
How about I open an IP request so the lawyers can give a nod to the
rule? This would create a simple, safe solution for all Eclipse
developers because I bet that I wasn't the first one to wonder - I was
just the first one who dared to ask :-)
Regards,

[Aaron Digulla]

Post by Wayne Beaton
Sounds like a plan.

Since this is my first attempt to do this: That means I should open a CQ
request on ipzilla, right?

What project should I select? eclipse.platform?

Post by Wayne Beaton

Post by Aaron Digulla
How about I open an IP request so the lawyers can give a nod to the
rule? This would create a simple, safe solution for all Eclipse
developers because I bet that I wasn't the first one to wonder - I was
just the first one who dared to ask :-)

Regards,

[Wayne Beaton]

Good question.

Go to the portal, select any project (it doesn't matter) in the "Eclipse
Projects" component. Click on the "[pose] a question about general legal
issue" option. That'll take you to the right place.

(or just go here:
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/enter_bug.cgi?product=IP&component=IP_Discussion
<https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/enter_bug.cgi?product=IP&component=IP_Discussion>)

Wayne

Post by Aaron Digulla

Post by Wayne Beaton
Sounds like a plan.

Since this is my first attempt to do this: That means I should open a CQ
request on ipzilla, right?
What project should I select? eclipse.platform?

Post by Wayne Beaton

Post by Aaron Digulla
How about I open an IP request so the lawyers can give a nod to the
rule? This would create a simple, safe solution for all Eclipse
developers because I bet that I wasn't the first one to wonder - I was
just the first one who dared to ask :-)

Regards,

[Aaron Digulla]

Post by Wayne Beaton
Good question.
Go to the portal, select any project (it doesn't matter) in the "Eclipse
Projects" component. Click on the "[pose] a question about general legal
issue" option. That'll take you to the right place.
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/enter_bug.cgi?product=IP&component=IP_Discussion
<https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/enter_bug.cgi?product=IP&component=IP_Discussion>)

Thanks a lot for your help! Only, I get nowhere... :-)

When I click "new" in ipzilla, I get "page has moved, go to the portal".
I did but there is nothing obviously related to CQ or IP processes on
https://dev.eclipse.org/portal/myfoundation/portal/portal.php.

When I try your link, I get: "Sorry, either the product IP does not
exist or you aren't authorized to enter a CQ into it." ...

:-P

Regards,

Post by Wayne Beaton

Post by Aaron Digulla

Post by Wayne Beaton
Sounds like a plan.

Since this is my first attempt to do this: That means I should open a CQ
request on ipzilla, right?
What project should I select? eclipse.platform?

Post by Wayne Beaton

Post by Aaron Digulla
How about I open an IP request so the lawyers can give a nod to the
rule? This would create a simple, safe solution for all Eclipse
developers because I bet that I wasn't the first one to wonder - I was
just the first one who dared to ask :-)

Regards,

--
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Explore Eclipse Projects <http://www.eclipse.org/projects>
_______________________________________________
dash-dev mailing list
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dash-dev

[Wayne Beaton]

Right. That functionality is limited to Project Leads and PMC members.

Sorry about that.

I guess that I'll have to pose the question. Can you give me some words
to start from?

Thanks,

Wayne

Post by Aaron Digulla

Post by Wayne Beaton
Good question.
Go to the portal, select any project (it doesn't matter) in the "Eclipse
Projects" component. Click on the "[pose] a question about general legal
issue" option. That'll take you to the right place.
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/enter_bug.cgi?product=IP&component=IP_Discussion
<https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/enter_bug.cgi?product=IP&component=IP_Discussion>)

Thanks a lot for your help! Only, I get nowhere... :-)
When I click "new" in ipzilla, I get "page has moved, go to the portal".
I did but there is nothing obviously related to CQ or IP processes on
https://dev.eclipse.org/portal/myfoundation/portal/portal.php.
When I try your link, I get: "Sorry, either the product IP does not
exist or you aren't authorized to enter a CQ into it." ...
:-P
Regards,

Post by Wayne Beaton

Post by Aaron Digulla

Post by Wayne Beaton
Sounds like a plan.

Since this is my first attempt to do this: That means I should open a CQ
request on ipzilla, right?
What project should I select? eclipse.platform?

Post by Wayne Beaton

Post by Aaron Digulla
How about I open an IP request so the lawyers can give a nod to the
rule? This would create a simple, safe solution for all Eclipse
developers because I bet that I wasn't the first one to wonder - I was
just the first one who dared to ask :-)

Regards,

--
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Explore Eclipse Projects <http://www.eclipse.org/projects>
_______________________________________________
dash-dev mailing list
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dash-dev

[Aaron Digulla]

Post by Wayne Beaton
Right. That functionality is limited to Project Leads and PMC members.
Sorry about that.

What have we learned yesterday? "open source" isn't that open after all ;-)

Post by Wayne Beaton
I guess that I'll have to pose the question.

Thanks.

Post by Wayne Beaton
Can you give me some words to start from?

Sure:

---------------------- cut ------------------------------

There was a request on the dash-dev mailing list how to handle the
following situation: Copying code from public sources like Wikipedia,
Stackoverflow or private blogs.

To limit the scope of the discussion and kind of create a precedent,
let's start with copying code from Stackoverflow. Stackoverflow.com is
a site where all kinds of software developers share their knowledge.

According to the rules of the site, all "user contributions licensed
under cc-wiki with attribution required" (see the bottom of each page
on http://stackoverflow.com/).

"cc-wiki" means: "You are free to share - to copy, distribute and
transmit the work -, to remix - to adapt the work - and to make
commercial use of the work"
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)

"attribution required" means "You must attribute the work in the
manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that
suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)." Details can
be found in this blog post:
http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/

The four rules mentioned there apply if you "copy" ("republish this
content") the whole stackoverflow site - answers, questions, user
data, everything. They don't make that much sense when just a piece of
code is copied.

For me, only the second rule makes sense in the context of "using code
from stackoverflow.com in Eclipse projects": "Hyperlink directly to
the original question"

I read that as: Add a comment with a link to the place where you found
the code that you copied/used as a template.

Can you please verify this for any code published on
stackoverflow.com? My main goal is to get a single all-time approval
for code so Eclipse developers can use this great resource without
causing thousands of tiny CQ requests.

If this works well, I'd like to file similar requests for other public
developer resources like, for example, Wikipedia.

---------------------- cut ------------------------------

Regards,

[Wayne Beaton]

Post by Aaron Digulla

Post by Wayne Beaton
Right. That functionality is limited to Project Leads and PMC members.
Sorry about that.

What have we learned yesterday? "open source" isn't that open after all ;-)

Sorry... hot button item.

What is your definition of "open"?

We invite participation in the project. We have a level playing field
for those who want to participate.

We balance that with a well-defined policy for managing intellectual
property.

How is this not open?

Wayne

[Aaron Digulla]

Post by Wayne Beaton
How is this not open?

As I said yesterday: It's not open because I can't simply copy code
from GPL'd projects or other OSS sources without causing a lot of
trouble :-)

And since we all know human nature, we know it's just a matter of time
until something will blow up.

I know that you can't change that; but at the same time, I will never
be happy with legal issues creeping into my work. Try to bear my
occasional sarcastic comment about this :-)

PS: It took the AROS project three years to select a "good" OSS
license: We wrote our own ;-) Or rather modified the Mozilla license.
At college, I took lessons in "Law and Data Privacy". I wrote an Amiga
OS clone (while Amiga, Inc. was watching unhappily). I need to
complain about legal stuff once in a while or I won't get 50...

Regards,

[Miles Parker]

Post by Wayne Beaton
How is this not open?

As I said yesterday: It's not open because I can't simply copy code from GPL'd projects or other OSS sources without causing a lot of trouble :-)

OK, I'll be the first to point out that you can't *ever* copy code from GPL'd projects, and that GPL isn't OSS. ;)

[Andrew Overholt]

Post by Miles Parker
OK, I'll be the first to point out that you can't *ever* copy code
from GPL'd projects, and that GPL isn't OSS. ;)

Hahahahahaha.

Andrew

[Wayne Beaton]

I'm just happy to see all this open communication on the Dash dev list.

Wayne

Post by Andrew Overholt

Post by Miles Parker
OK, I'll be the first to point out that you can't *ever* copy code
from GPL'd projects, and that GPL isn't OSS. ;)

Hahahahahaha.
Andrew
_______________________________________________
dash-dev mailing list
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dash-dev

[Wayne Beaton]

Question is posted.

Wayne

Post by Aaron Digulla

Post by Wayne Beaton
Right. That functionality is limited to Project Leads and PMC members.
Sorry about that.

What have we learned yesterday? "open source" isn't that open after all ;-)

Post by Wayne Beaton
I guess that I'll have to pose the question.

Thanks.

Post by Wayne Beaton
Can you give me some words to start from?

---------------------- cut ------------------------------
There was a request on the dash-dev mailing list how to handle the
following situation: Copying code from public sources like Wikipedia,
Stackoverflow or private blogs.
To limit the scope of the discussion and kind of create a precedent,
let's start with copying code from Stackoverflow. Stackoverflow.com is
a site where all kinds of software developers share their knowledge.
According to the rules of the site, all "user contributions licensed
under cc-wiki with attribution required" (see the bottom of each page
on http://stackoverflow.com/).
"cc-wiki" means: "You are free to share - to copy, distribute and
transmit the work -, to remix - to adapt the work - and to make
commercial use of the work"
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)
"attribution required" means "You must attribute the work in the
manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that
suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)." Details can
http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/
The four rules mentioned there apply if you "copy" ("republish this
content") the whole stackoverflow site - answers, questions, user
data, everything. They don't make that much sense when just a piece of
code is copied.
For me, only the second rule makes sense in the context of "using code
from stackoverflow.com in Eclipse projects": "Hyperlink directly to
the original question"
I read that as: Add a comment with a link to the place where you found
the code that you copied/used as a template.
Can you please verify this for any code published on
stackoverflow.com? My main goal is to get a single all-time approval
for code so Eclipse developers can use this great resource without
causing thousands of tiny CQ requests.
If this works well, I'd like to file similar requests for other public
developer resources like, for example, Wikipedia.
---------------------- cut ------------------------------
Regards,

[Aaron Digulla]

Post by Wayne Beaton
Question is posted.

Thanks a lot. Is there a way I can follow the discussion? The search
doesn't show up anything :-/

https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&long_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailassigned_to2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailcc2=1&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&chfieldfrom=2012-04-23&chfieldto=Now&chfield=%5BBug+creation%5D&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=

Regards,

[Wayne Beaton]

IP questions are kept private.

Wayne

Post by Aaron Digulla

Post by Wayne Beaton
Question is posted.

Thanks a lot. Is there a way I can follow the discussion? The search
doesn't show up anything :-/
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&long_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailassigned_to2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailcc2=1&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&chfieldfrom=2012-04-23&chfieldto=Now&chfield=%5BBug+creation%5D&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=
Regards,

[Denis Roy]

Why?

Post by Wayne Beaton
IP questions are kept private.
Wayne

Post by Aaron Digulla

Post by Wayne Beaton
Question is posted.

Thanks a lot. Is there a way I can follow the discussion? The search
doesn't show up anything :-/
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&long_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=
substring&email1=&emailassigned_to2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailcc2=1&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&chfieldfrom=2012-04-23&chfieldto=Now&chfield=%5BBug+creation%5D&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=
Regards,

--
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Explore Eclipse Projects <http://www.eclipse.org/projects>
_______________________________________________
dash-dev mailing list
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dash-dev

[Jesse McConnell]

to prevent rifts in the IP continuum

cheers,
jesse

--
jesse mcconnell

Post by Wayne Beaton
Why?
IP questions are kept private.
Wayne
Question is posted.
Thanks a lot. Is there a way I can follow the discussion? The search
doesn't show up anything :-/
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&long_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&emailassigne
d_to1=1&a
mp;emailtype1=
substring&email1=&emailassigned_to2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailcc2=1&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&chfieldfrom=2012-04-23&chfieldto=Now&chfield=%5BBug+creation%5D&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=
Regards,
--
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Explore Eclipse Projects
_______________________________________________
dash-dev mailing list
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dash-dev
_______________________________________________
dash-dev mailing list
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dash-dev

[Miles Parker]

Maybe I'm imagining this, but I thought this policy was created to add some value to being an Eclipse partner company. If you're a partner you get to see all of the CQs… yippee!

Post by Wayne Beaton
Why?

Post by Wayne Beaton
IP questions are kept private.
Wayne

Post by Aaron Digulla

Post by Wayne Beaton
Question is posted.

Thanks a lot. Is there a way I can follow the discussion? The search
doesn't show up anything :-/
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&long_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&emailassigne
d_to1=1&a
mp;emailtype1=
substring&email1=&emailassigned_to2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailcc2=1&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&chfieldfrom=2012-04-23&chfieldto=Now&chfield=%5BBug+creation%5D&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=
Regards,

--
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Explore Eclipse Projects
_______________________________________________
dash-dev mailing list
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dash-dev

_______________________________________________
dash-dev mailing list
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dash-dev

[Denis Roy]

Sure, for CQs, but this is discussion involving licensing and copyright
initiated by a member of our community (and a committer, no less). I
don't understand why such discussion would need to happen behind closed
doors, especially considering we advocate openness and transparency.

Post by Miles Parker
Maybe I'm imagining this, but I thought this policy was created to add
some value to being an Eclipse partner company. If you're a partner
you get to see all of the CQs... yippee!

Why?

Post by Wayne Beaton
IP questions are kept private.
Wayne

Post by Aaron Digulla

Post by Wayne Beaton
Question is posted.

Thanks a lot. Is there a way I can follow the discussion? The search
doesn't show up anything :-/
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&long_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&emailassigne
d_to1=1&a
mp;emailtype1=
substring&email1=&emailassigned_to2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailcc2=1&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&chfieldfrom=2012-04-23&chfieldto=Now&chfield=%5BBug+creation%5D&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=
Regards,

--
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Explore Eclipse Projects <http://www.eclipse.org/projects>

[Aaron Digulla]

Post by Denis Roy
Sure, for CQs, but this is discussion involving licensing and copyright
initiated by a member of our community (and a committer, no less). I
don't understand why such discussion would need to happen behind closed
doors, especially considering we advocate openness and transparency.

+1

I could understand if comments were disabled for CQs to keep them clean
but why completely hide them? Is that a legal matter (NDA or something)
or a social matter (avoid bad blood, heated discussions, trolling)?

Regards,

[Miles Parker]

I'm guessing it's just an accident of how the IP system was setup, e.g. no set of permissions set up for IP questions vs. actual CQs.

Post by Aaron Digulla

Post by Denis Roy
Sure, for CQs, but this is discussion involving licensing and copyright
initiated by a member of our community (and a committer, no less). I
don't understand why such discussion would need to happen behind closed
doors, especially considering we advocate openness and transparency.

+1
I could understand if comments were disabled for CQs to keep them clean
but why completely hide them? Is that a legal matter (NDA or something)
or a social matter (avoid bad blood, heated discussions, trolling)?
Regards,
--
Aaron "Optimizer" Digulla a.k.a. Philmann Dark
"It's not the universe that's limited, it's our imagination.
Follow me and I'll show you something beyond the limits."
http://blog.pdark.de/
_______________________________________________
dash-dev mailing list
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dash-dev

[Denis Roy]

Could be -- but I implemented that functionality, and I don't remember
that to be part of the design. I'll look into it.

Post by Miles Parker
I'm guessing it's just an accident of how the IP system was setup, e.g. no set of permissions set up for IP questions vs. actual CQs.

Post by Aaron Digulla

Post by Denis Roy
Sure, for CQs, but this is discussion involving licensing and copyright
initiated by a member of our community (and a committer, no less). I
don't understand why such discussion would need to happen behind closed
doors, especially considering we advocate openness and transparency.

+1
I could understand if comments were disabled for CQs to keep them clean
but why completely hide them? Is that a legal matter (NDA or something)
or a social matter (avoid bad blood, heated discussions, trolling)?
Regards,
--
Aaron "Optimizer" Digulla a.k.a. Philmann Dark
"It's not the universe that's limited, it's our imagination.
Follow me and I'll show you something beyond the limits."
http://blog.pdark.de/
_______________________________________________
dash-dev mailing list
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dash-dev

_______________________________________________
dash-dev mailing list
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dash-dev

[Denis Roy]

Here it is:

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=166285

A new menu option in Committer tools, called Initiate an IP
discussion using IPZilla has been created. Using this option, committers can
open new IPBugs to discuss IP issues.


I'm guessing with the transition from Committer Tools > Portal this
functionality got lost. At the very least, I think Aaron should be CC'd
on the discussion CQ so that he can participate.

I'll reopen the bug. Something about it just doesn't seem right.

Post by Denis Roy
Could be -- but I implemented that functionality, and I don't remember
that to be part of the design. I'll look into it.

Post by Miles Parker
I'm guessing it's just an accident of how the IP system was setup, e.g. no set of permissions set up for IP questions vs. actual CQs.

Post by Aaron Digulla

Post by Denis Roy
Sure, for CQs, but this is discussion involving licensing and copyright
initiated by a member of our community (and a committer, no less). I
don't understand why such discussion would need to happen behind closed
doors, especially considering we advocate openness and transparency.

+1
I could understand if comments were disabled for CQs to keep them clean
but why completely hide them? Is that a legal matter (NDA or something)
or a social matter (avoid bad blood, heated discussions, trolling)?
Regards,
--
Aaron "Optimizer" Digulla a.k.a. Philmann Dark
"It's not the universe that's limited, it's our imagination.
Follow me and I'll show you something beyond the limits."
http://blog.pdark.de/
_______________________________________________

[Wayne Beaton]

I recall that this was done on purpose. The nature of legal questions is
that they oftentimes contain sensitive information.

Let's move this discussion to the Bug [1]. Janet is copied on the bug
and should be able to clarify.

Wayne

[1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=166285

Post by Miles Parker
I'm guessing it's just an accident of how the IP system was setup, e.g. no set of permissions set up for IP questions vs. actual CQs.

Post by Aaron Digulla

Post by Denis Roy
Sure, for CQs, but this is discussion involving licensing and copyright
initiated by a member of our community (and a committer, no less). I
don't understand why such discussion would need to happen behind closed
doors, especially considering we advocate openness and transparency.

+1
I could understand if comments were disabled for CQs to keep them clean
but why completely hide them? Is that a legal matter (NDA or something)
or a social matter (avoid bad blood, heated discussions, trolling)?
Regards,
--
Aaron "Optimizer" Digulla a.k.a. Philmann Dark
"It's not the universe that's limited, it's our imagination.
Follow me and I'll show you something beyond the limits."
http://blog.pdark.de/
_______________________________________________
dash-dev mailing list
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dash-dev

_______________________________________________
dash-dev mailing list
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dash-dev

[Miles Parker]

Thanks for sticking your neck out, Aaron. :) It would be great to have a general solution for such limited cases like this. I think we've all had the same dilemma, and I've ended up taking the better safe than sorry route rather than try to deal w/ the IP issues. It's usually far easier to just re-implement something like this than to go through CQ process, and it's a waste of Eclipse resources to have to sift through these cases. That's kind of perverse, given that one of the major points of Open Source is to be able to share code with one another...

Perhaps eventually it would be nice to have some kind of git based sandbox, where people could post code snippets with the blanket representation that they've written the code and they have the right to share it..

Post by Aaron Digulla

Post by Wayne Beaton
Alternatively, I think we can make the case that Stack Overflow
contributions are CC-licensed [1] and treat the code similar to a
third-party library. However, I believe that license compatibility will
be complicated.

http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/
The text is a bit complicated; the four rules apply if you make a copy
of the site under a different domain. Since source code isn't HTML, the
only rule that applies is probably #2 which boils down to "add a link to
the question/answer where you got that code from"
How about I open an IP request so the lawyers can give a nod to the
rule? This would create a simple, safe solution for all Eclipse
developers because I bet that I wasn't the first one to wonder - I was
just the first one who dared to ask :-)
Regards,

Post by Wayne Beaton
[1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Post by Aaron Digulla
Hello,
I've stumbled over one of these corner cases: I copied 7 lines of code
from stackoverflow.com (http://stackoverflow.com/a/3758880/34088)
The code isn't an OSS project, it's not under a specific license and I
feel that it's not worth the effort to run this through the standard IP
process.
What are the rules when you copy a code example from a blog? I tried to
find some guidelines in the committer rules and IP process, etc, but
everything there is more suitable for "we want to fork some big OSS
project".
Regards,

--
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Explore Eclipse Projects <http://www.eclipse.org/projects>
_______________________________________________
dash-dev mailing list
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dash-dev

--
Aaron "Optimizer" Digulla a.k.a. Philmann Dark
"It's not the universe that's limited, it's our imagination.
Follow me and I'll show you something beyond the limits."
http://blog.pdark.de/
_______________________________________________
dash-dev mailing list
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dash-dev

[Aaron Digulla]

Post by Miles Parker
That's kind of perverse, given that one
of the major points of Open Source is to be able to share code with
one another...

<rant>

OSS is not about sharing code with just anyone; it's only with anyone
you happen to like!

The main difference to proprietary software is that OSS developers don't
believe that you can buy love. And they especially hate you if you
happen to use a different OSS license than the one which they
painstakingly selected after a long time of suffering (reading legalese,
trying to understand it, telling your shrink that you're not insane -
the rest of the world is and you can prove it, ...)

It's an ego problem: I spent a year to find the perfect license, so
everyone else must be an idiot (proof: they use a different one). And
who would want to share their hard work with fools?

</rant>

Regards,