If I give full, 100% attribution to source code, is it still stealing?

views:

180

answers:

+4 Q:

If I give full, 100% attribution to source code, is it still stealing?

For example, say that I want to make a program that solves linear equations.

Say I find an open source program that does this and I decide to read it, study it, and generally tweak it to my liking and keeping around 70% of the code.

If I give 100% undisputed attribution to the original author both in source code and my website (I'm not a thief and give credit where credit is due), would this be illegal and frowned upon by my fellow peers?

+2 A:

That depends entirely on the license under which the library is distributed.

EDIT: That said, most authors would probably like a note on sections you modified so that if they think your code stinks, they don't seem to be endorsing it.

Billy ONeal 2010-07-11 02:21:19

+1 A:

Note: I am not a lawyer.

It could be stealing. It depends on the license. Read the license.

Daniel A. White 2010-07-11 02:21:45

It can't be stealing because he isn't depriving the author of anything.

freespace 2010-07-11 02:29:13

+10 A:

Depends on the license. "Open source" can mean a lot of things. Some licenses allow you to use the code in any way you choose, including using it in your own commercial application. Others (like the GPL) require that if you use it, you license your own program under the GPL as well.

If you have any doubts, you can always contact the original author to request permission.

Nick Meyer 2010-07-11 02:22:02

+1, definitely contact the author about any questions (assuming the author can be reached). I think it's also worth noting the difference between theft (as in: copyright/ip infringement) and theft (as in: 'programming is 90% theft, 9% ingenuity, and 1% luck' ~ and similar phrases)

Brian S 2010-07-11 02:26:52

+8 A:

No, it would not be stealing, it may still however be copyright infringement (depending on the license) or patent infringement...

By giving proper and complete attribution, you have protected yourself from the academic crime of plagiarism, but not necessarily anything else.

jball 2010-07-11 02:22:54

+1, not stealing, and you are not a thief. Don't let them brainwash you into thinking you are some how depriving someone else of their work by making a copy of it.

freespace 2010-07-11 02:28:28

Don't the OSI-approved licenses require that users are given the right to modify and redistribute the source code (at least non-commercially)?

Lèse majesté 2010-07-11 02:31:37

@Lèse, commercially too. But there are certain conditions. For instance, Nick is correct that copyleft licenses generally require that if you distribute, you release your own modifications under the same license. And most licenses require you include the license text in your distribution.

Matthew Flaschen 2010-07-11 02:33:33

Depends entirely on the license associated with the source code you're using. If it's a BSD style license then what you describe isn't going to violate the license. If it's GPL then attribution isn't sufficient. You also have to distribute the code on request.

sashang 2010-07-11 02:28:48

The rest of the answers here are probably wrong!

IANAL, but based on my reading of Jacobsen v. Katzer, if you copied someone else's work that work was released under an open license but don't adhere to its terms (presumably, since you say you give attribution but don't mention including a copy of the license itself) it would not be copyright infringement but rather a breach of contract.

Charles 2010-07-11 02:34:15

I'm curious as to why you were downvoted.

Sergio Tapia 2010-07-11 02:35:53

Er... that doesn't exactly help the OP. It'd still not be legal. (Note: I did not downvote this answer, just explaining possible causes)

Billy ONeal 2010-07-11 02:36:03

@Sergio, because that ruling was overturned. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the license had "enforceable copyrightconditions." They ruled that, "Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or enforce that right. [...] It is outside the scope of the Artistic License to modify and distribute the copyrighted materials without copyright notices" The case later settled publicly, with the defendant stipulating to a permanent injunction and paying $100,000. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobsen_v._Katzer .

Matthew Flaschen 2010-07-11 02:46:12

@Matthew: Yes, I'm aware -- that's why I said it would be a breach. But they were not able to get an injunction because it was a contractual failure rather than a copyright infringement. That is, the court held that they did have permission to use the material from the license, but that they failed to uphold their obligations under that license and were responsible for damages. Rather than have the court decide the damages they settled.

Charles 2010-07-12 22:43:58

@Charles, you're mistaken. The district court initially said it was only contractual, but this was unmistakably overturned by the CAFC, as stated above. After the appeals ruling, the district court actually had to [dismiss](http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/284.pdf) the contract claims, while keeping the *copyright infringement* claims in play. This is because the contract claims were preempted by the copyright claims allowed by the CAFC. The settlement was overwhelmingly favorable to the plaintiff, and *included* an [injunction](http://jmri.org/k/docket/402-2.pdf) issued by the Court.

Matthew Flaschen 2010-07-13 06:00:27

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

If I give full, 100% attribution to source code, is it still stealing?

related questions