How to Deal With Stolen Code? 799
greenrom writes "I work for a small company as a software developer. While investigating a bug in one of our products, I found source code on a website that was nearly identical to code used in our product. Even the comments were the same. It's obvious that a developer at our company found some useful code on the web and copied it. The original author didn't attach any particular license to the code. It's just 200 lines of code the author posted in a forum. Is it legitimate to use source code that's publicly available but doesn't fall under any particular license? If not, what's the best way to deal with this kind of situation? Since I'm now the only person working on this code, there's no practical way to report the situation confidentially. I'm new to the company, and the developer who copied the code is the project lead. Reporting him to management doesn't seem like a good career move. I could rewrite the copied code without reporting him, but since the product is very close to release it would be difficult to make a significant change without providing some justification."
Well... (Score:5, Informative)
Due dilligence and move on (Score:1, Informative)
Personally I'd attach a clear comment to that piece of code that reads something like Seems to be derived from [TheUrl]; no license issues as far as I can see. Original adaptation by [YourLeadNameGoesHere] - [YourNameGoesHere] ([Today'sDate])
At least you'd be doing some due dilligence and making sure no one thinks you're the one who did the copy&paste job. In the unlikely even that there's a problem, at least you'd have something to fall back on that can be audited off your source control repository.
Applications are full of snippet'ed code copied from all over teh internets, much of which is technically in the public domain since no copyright is claimed (or practically enforced). I don't think anyone cares. Hell, I've seen people copy code from sites that were ripping off original authors on other sites (i.e, codeproject.com). The problem is when you incorporate large swaths of functionality and don't bother to follow the original licenses.
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:5, Informative)
Spilling the beans (Score:4, Informative)
Don't worry about the fact that the forum post was 4 months before you guys even started work on your project. In your haste to protect your companies IP you didn't realize you were the ones doing the copying.
Re:Due dilligence and move on (Score:5, Informative)
You'd be wrong. (At least in the United States you would.)
From http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html [copyright.gov]: "Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work" and "The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law...."
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:1, Informative)
1. Could this (legally) be a problem?
Ans: Consult a lawyer to be sure. Everything in the US automatically has copyright attached. What the requirements are in such a case may not be well defined - if it is the question definitely needs a sound legal answer.
2. Would this (practially) be a problem?
Ans: Probably not, if the author posted it in a context where it was pretty clear he didn't have a concern with reuse (e.g. answering someone a question on how to do X). It's only a problem if someone bugs you about it, really. The legal part in #1 basically boils down to "if we were sued and we fought it out, would we win or lose?" From one standpoint, having to fight the lawsuit in the first place is already a loss...
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:5, Informative)
>Of course it is. This kind of thing happens all the time.
This may be completely commonplace, but it is certainly not legal. Simply posting something in a public place does NOT put it in the public domain, and contrary to what many people in this forum are saying, failing to attach a copyright notification to something does NOT place it in the public domain either. Assuming the author posted the information after 1976 and is covered by american law, then the copyright act of 1976 provides for automatic copyright protections, unless there is some notification which explicitly puts it under a license which permits it use.
The original poster will probably never be called out if he leaves the situation as it stands he is still breaking the law. His options for avoiding this are to either find another copy of the code which is listed under a license, contact the author and ask for a license, or to rewrite the code.
You could ask politely (Score:5, Informative)
If your company want to be completely honest and above-board and legal, it must ask if it's okay to use the code. If the author says no or demand$ too much, you must not use it.
Unless you are fortunate enough to get a fast "sure, go ahead and use it" you will miss your deadline. Sometimes a little cash - maybe as little as the amount of man-hours it would take you to rewrite and test it - will be enough to expedite getting permission.
By the way, for all you know, the tech lead did ask permission, or the tech lead knows the code is already been dedicated to the public domain.
If it were me, I'd talk to the tech lead. If the tech lead doesn't have permission already and isn't willing to go to management and do The Right Thing (TM), I'd start circulating your resume and talk to management about it. When you do talk to management, present them with options that are likely to 1) be acceptable to management and 2) get the product out the door as soon as possible.
Re:Cookbook programming (Score:3, Informative)
Using Code Examples
This book is here to help you get your job done. In general, you may use the code in this book in your programs and documentation. You do not need to contact us for permission unless you're reproducing a significant portion of the code. For example, writing a program that uses several chunks of code from this book does not require permission. Selling or distributing a CD-ROM of examples from O'Reilly books does require permission
http://safari.adobepress.com/0596009747/xsltckbk2-PREFACE-2 I would assume other O'Reilly titles likely have similar licenses but it would be wise to check.
Quick Points (Score:5, Informative)
1. The original write owns the copyright to the code.
2. By posting it to the BB, he might have agreed to license it under whatever terms by which the board operates. This might mean you have some license to use it (either implied or actual).
3. The code copied by the developer might not be enough of the work as a whole to considered infringement.
4. One test for determining whether computer code infringes copyright, in the USA at least, is the classic, yet ambiguous "abstraction, filtration, comparison" test. (If the copying was complete with comments, then that's not so good for the copier, but if the code accomplishes a trivial function, then not so much.)
5. Speaking generally, it's important to be on the lookout for situations like this. For instance, if code is copied from an open-source project, then significant consequences can follow (c.f. the Asus story below this one.)
6. If you are concerned, talk with your company's legal counsel.
Re:Due dilligence and move on (Score:2, Informative)
TRIPS [wikipedia.org].
Re:Due dilligence and move on (Score:1, Informative)
It's not just the United States. Here's a map [wikipedia.org] showing countries which have signed the BerneConvention [wikipedia.org], under which copyright "must be automatic; it is prohibited to require formal registration".
Hmm, I think I see why the United States had to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and is gearing up to take on Iran...
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:3, Informative)
Note however that if you publish in a certain medium you may be providing certain implied license terms even if you explicitly claim otherwise. For example you can't put a notice on a website saying that all copying of it (outside strict fair use) is prohibited as to even read that notice it has to be copied (to the user's ram and browser cache if nothing else). Likewise usenet posts also would have an implied license to be distributed via usenet servers.
Re:It's common sense (Score:1, Informative)
That is precisely correct. When you create a written work in the US, you are automatically granted a copyright. No one can use that material unless you expressly allow it. If you read to the bottom of all Slashdot articles you'll see the following notice.
"All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2007 SourceForge, Inc."
SF cannot copyright something that belongs to you unless you expressly grant them the right. Therefore the bit about "The rest (c)..."
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:3, Informative)
About four things:
First, it's too short to be a likely candidate for copyright protection. Copyright is about creative works, not short phrases. The most protection one can get for a short phrase is trademark, and that's only for use in connection with selling things. For example, if the FDR family sold bear repellent spray, they might be able to use "Nothing to fear but fear itself" as a trademarked slogan in connection with the sale of the bear spray.
Second, back in FDR's day one had to actually register the copyright to get protection, and renew from time to time. The deadlines to register and renew have all long since passed. The quote comes from his inaugural address in 1933 (in reference to the Great Depression). See chart of copyright by year. [dts.edu]
Third, most use of the phrase would be "fair use." The concept of "fair use" is that I can't stop others from commenting about me or my work, or reporting on the news, or parodying my work. Simply saying "FDR said 'the only thing we have to fear is fear itself'" is definitely reporting on the news and matters of public concern. Quoting the speech in a biography is the same thing.
And, further, it's possible that there's an exception in this case because the government does not claim copyright on government works. It's a hard sell--while he was a government official, it's not like his job was to produce maps or photos the same way that NASA releases its maps without copyright--but worht a shot.
(IANAL, but studied IP law)
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:2, Informative)
Copyright cannot be abandoned unless you explicitly release into public domain. Registration is only to put everyone on notice that you have created something and seek certain advantages from the government if someone takes your copyrighted work. It is easier to prove your case in court if you have registered with USPTO and are seeking to prevent someone from using your work (infringing). Essentially, registering bolsters your claim that the work is your expression and not the opposing parties.
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:3, Informative)
They can claim all sorts of things, but that does not mean it will stand up in court. Even if the forum owns the copyright, that does not help the person who has not licensed it from anyone.
And books are considered the property of the purchaser, but that does not make them the copyright holder.
Nope, it is assumed all copyrighted material is for public consumption, since copyright law exists to promote publication. Try republishing a story from a large newspaper and see what happens.
Well, several things. First, that is not the exact words he used, but paraphrase. He said, "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Second, it predates the copyright extension so it has entered the public domain by now. it was said in 1933 and the copyright expired in 1961. Third, Copyright law includes a large and somewhat vague doctrine called "Fair Use" which makes it legal to use parts of or entire works for certain purposes, subject to certain restrictions. Using a quote like this almost always fair use. Finally, Providing attribution, that is FDR said, "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself..." is a fact, and facts are not copyrightable.
check out the USCO site [copyright.gov] for more info.
Nope, but I can read and I'm not afraid to educate myself on issues that effect me.
Forums.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Due dilligence and move on (Score:3, Informative)
Nope.
Re:It's common sense (Score:4, Informative)
Numerical Recipes [nr.com] (in C, C++, etc), has a restrictive license [nr.com] that only allows you to use the code for personal non-commercial uses. There doesn't seem to be any provision for using those samples in commercial products.
Re:An interesting question (Score:2, Informative)
No. Copyright violation always includes the act of copying. If you somehow managed to write a Harry Potter book exactly like Rowling wrote it without ever being exposed to the original Harry Potter, it would not be copyright violation (however you would have a very hard time convincing the judge
That's the difference between copyright and patents. With copyrights, only copying is illegal, independently coming up with the same isn't. Of course, if what you wrote is strikingly similar (or even identical) to some other code, that's evidence that you copied it (because it would be unlikely that you'd come up with the exactly same code independently). OTOH, evidence that you never have seen the other code is evidence against you copying it (that's why it's so important that people doing a clean-room reimplementation are never exposed to the original code). OTOH, with patents, it doesn't matter if you copied it or re-invented it yourself. It only matters if it dos something described by the patent.
IANAL, however.
Re:It's common sense (Score:5, Informative)
Yes! Now you're catching on! There *is* an implicit Copyright (at least in the United States) on *everything*. Unless the author has agreed to some other license, you need to ask their permission to reproduce it in its entirety (or any use that goes beyond "Fair Use"). Some sites have blanket licenses to everything posted on them that implicitly assigns copyrights of all contributions-- Wikipedia, for example. But if the site hasn't made such arrangements, and the author hasn't made such arrangements, and the "borrower" hasn't made such arrangements, Copyright has been violated.
As for books, some books grant a license for all sample code in the book to be used by the purchaser of the book in any way. Some don't (Numerical Recipies is the most commonly cited example-- it's an entire book of stuff you're not allowed to use. It's a very annoying book that way, needless to say).
It sounds like you seriously need to learn a little bit about Copyrights before you get yourself and your employer in serious trouble.
Forum's Terms & Conditions (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:4, Informative)
Layne
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:5, Informative)
If you instead rewrite the code, you face the possible claim that your new code is a derivative work which is also covered by the original author's copyright. The "cleanroom" approach is sometimes used to avoid this. Have someone who has seen the original code spec the functions, and give the spec but not the original code to a programmer who has never seen the original. Document carefully what you have done and why. If the programmer who writes the code has no access to the original, he can't copy it. Then you only have to worry about software patents -- but that's a separate issue.
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:3, Informative)
I have had people, I think on the Creative Commons mailing lists, tell me that this is not the case in their countries... That the work must be original or creative or something along those lines and that things like a recording of water cooler conversations and the like would likely fail this and not get copyright protection.
I don't claim to understand this at this point, but if so, there are some things you can create in some places which don't get automatic copyright. But in that case, I guess you wouldn't get a copyright even if you tried to register it...
Can anyone give any insight into this for the layman?
all the best,
drew
Regarding legality (Score:4, Informative)
IANAL; YMMV.
Code posted on the web with no license is free... (Score:1, Informative)
If you have a better way to code that section, then do so, and tell your project leader the truth if he asks -- tell him you replaced it because you could improve it, and tell him you saw it on the web if you're so interested in the subject.
200 lines of code from the Internet, posted by their author, are free. Period. Nothing to worry about. Not everything needs a license to be used. Ever find a quarter on the ground? Somebody ever give you one? Did you require a deed to prove you had the right to the quarter?
No, you just used it. And that's what you do with code with no attached license which is posted on the Internet by it's author. Enjoy.
Man, this society has become ridiculously litigious when people are hung up about this stuff.
Re:OT: Burning money (Score:3, Informative)
But this is why it is a big benefit to the USA that Saudi Arabia sells oil in USD, Japan, China etc sell stuff in USD and so on. This means hundreds of countries around the world will need to hold and keep US Dollars.
Then whenever the US Gov decides to print money, they get to instantly tax all those entities around the world who are holding those US dollars that just got cheaper.
So Japan and China sell stuff to the USA and get lots of US Dollars from the USA, and then they use those US dollars to buy lots of IOUs in USD from the US Gov, which then repumps the US dollars into the economy. Funny eh? But so far the "perpetual money machine" has been spinning for a lot longer than the previous "machines".
Of course the US dollars are now being pumped into Iraq, so the machine might stop spinning sooner.
Same goes if a lot of trades started using the Euro instead of the USD.
Re:bad advice on GPL (Score:1, Informative)
In any case the phrase "derives from" appears nowhere in the LGPL, having just searched it. In fact the characters "deriv" do not appear at all so you're basically making this up.
Re:Uhhhhh (Score:3, Informative)
Or Bob Villa's instructions for how to build a deck.
Computer code is a series of instructions for how to do something. It's not a work of art.
I don't think Aunt Tilly or Bob can refuse others the right to use the series of instructions for making a cookie or building a deck. That would be ridiculous. The cookie police knocking on your door saying "sorry but you have to add the flour *after* the sugar or you owe Aunt Tillie a licensing fee". Absurd.
That said both Aunt Tillie and Bob *do* have a copyright on the exact words they wrote. So you can't just paste their instructions verbatim into the new cookbook or home improvement guide you're writing without their permission.
IANAL