Am I free to make use of code snippets found in a bachelor&#39;s thesis under an open-source license? I found an interesting bachelor's thesis recently, with some ideas in it that I have not seen applied in any sort of library that I've come across before. Thus, I would like to create my own library to apply some of the ideas found in this thesis. My question is -- as this thesis does not contain a copyright notice, am I free under fair use to make use of the &quot;interfaces&quot; defined in the thesis in my own open-source library (for what it's worth, this will probably be MIT licensed). I have reached out to the author to clarify on the copyright status of the work, and have yet to receive a response -- but even if they do not give their blessing, am I still able to make use of their interfaces under fair use? I know that in Google v Oracle, it was ruled that &quot;declaring code&quot; falls under fair use -- but the question is: What exactly is declaring code? I put &quot;interfaces&quot; in quotes above, because the languages used in the thesis (Haskell and Purescript) do not have a concept directly comparable to interfaces in other languages. So this leads to some questions: Are Haskell data type declarations considered &quot;declaring code&quot; in the Oracle v Google terminology, thus making copying Haskell data type declarations fair use? Are Haskell type classes considered &quot;declaring code&quot; in the Oracle v Google terminology, thus making copying them fair use? Type classes in Haskell are pretty similar to interfaces in other languages, so it seems plausible that they could be considered declaring code. However, data types seem a bit blurrier to me. Whereas from an object-oriented perspective, data types (such as, say, a linked list) might be considered &quot;implementing code&quot; rather than &quot;declaring code&quot; -- in Haskell, the equivalent: data List a = Empty | Append a (List a) would probably be considered &quot;declaring&quot; code: A List is either Empty, or a value a appended to another list. The data structure is the interface, in a sense. This brings up another question with regard to the exact definition of &quot;declaring code&quot;, given that there are entire programming paradigms in which everything could arguably be called &quot;declaring code&quot;. Not to mention the fact that if, one tries to define &quot;declaring code&quot; to be &quot;the types/interfaces defined by a program&quot;, and &quot;implementing code&quot; to be &quot;the terms inhabiting those types/interfaces&quot;, this too faces problems -- as there are languages where the distinction between types and terms is blurred. Have any legal scholars investigated these issues? Or is &quot;declaring code&quot; in Google v Oracle defined in such a way to decide what is and is not declaring code in some of the &quot;gray cases&quot; mentioned above? Does the distinction come down to intent, or the complexity of the &quot;declaring code&quot; perhaps?
The lack of a copyright notice is irrelevant, what matters is whether permission is granted. The material cannot be copied, except if the copyright holder grants you permission to copy. However, you might be able to create something legal and satisfactory on your own, because the underlying ideas are not protected. By way of analogy, you cannot copy the Turbo Pascal Numeric Methods library without permission, but you can study the logic of a module and write your own FFT routine. The status of something as &quot;declaring code&quot; is entirely irrelevant to the court's decision in Google v. Oracle. What is relevant to the court's finding of fair use is that the content constituted 0.4 percent of the entire API, and the fact that the copied lines of code are inextricably bound to other lines of code that are accessed by programmers, allowing programmers to bring their skills to a new environment. The court found that he amount of copying was tethered to a valid, and transformative, purpose.
There is no contract between you (the licensee) and the licensor of the software. The creator of the open source software just says "here's the software, you may use it if you like, as long as you fulfil some conditions. ". No contract, no liability. I think the developer would only be liable if they intentionally created software that causes damage. (Which has happened, some open source browser plugins have recently been modified to run bitcoin mining software, or worse. I suppose the miscreants could follow all the GPL rules or whatever license is used).
Yes. This is infringement. This infringement might be excused by a &quot;fair use&quot; defense but it probably isn't. At a very small scale tailor to a very specific educational program, for example, for just members of a thirty person English class that they are currently taking, it might qualify as educational fair use. But I get the impression that the contemplated translation project is far more ambitious than that. The underlying content of the events reported in the news are not protected by copyright, but the language used to report those events and any translations of that language, is protected. The only reliable way to solve it is to get permission to do so from the holder of the copyright of the source of the new reports you are translating.
"Pastiche" is a literary, not a legal term, and as a professional coder, I would not use it to describe code that to some extent imitated other code. The legal question here is: is your code a derivative work of the code it is based on, and if it is, did you have permission to make that work. Copyright, in an Berne Convention country, which includes the EU, does not protect ideas and concepts, it protects expression. It protects the choices of words and symbols, and other forms of expression. If all you did was study example code, presented for educational purposes, and then write code that performs a similar function, using the same general techniques, then I don't think you have infringed copyright. That, after all, is why people post code to Stack Overflow and similar sites, to allow them to learn how to use specific coding techniques, including in commercial projects. I have used techniques posted to SO to do coding as part of my paid job. The usual test for copying under US law is "substantial similarity". This takes into account cases where there is essentially only one way to say or code something. I don't know the exact tests under the various laws of various EU countries, and they will not all be the same. But I suspect that on this point they are, well, substantially similar :). I can't advise on your specific situation. But if it is as described, I don't think you have a problem.
No. (Therefore no). Not necessarily. Yes. Is there a fair use for patents? No. "Fair use" is a affirmative defense for copyright infringement. The issue is that patents cover an design, idea or methodology, while copyright covers an "artistic" work. For example, if he were alive and working today, van Gogh would have copyright over his collection of paintings. If he developed a special paintbrush to make his distinctive style, he could patent the design for that brush. There is no obligation to make a patent available, much less at a "fair rate". And there is no obligation for a patent holder to make their patent available (so yes, they can block you directly or indirectly). There are various rationales for this. One is that a patent holder's historical reward for producing a new invention, a furtherance of common knowledge, is that that individual would receive an exclusive monopoly on the manufacture and sale of that invention. Often, this would serve as a way to recoup investment in new development and an incentive to experiment and expand the knowledge base of a country. This arrangement in the modern day is most closely represented by the exclusive license agreement, in which the licensor (in this case the patent holder) agrees to not only give the licensee the legal right to use the patent holder the legal ability to use their patent, but also agrees to limitations in what other people are granted that legal ability, in exchange for compensation.
Wikipedia, at least the English-language edition of Wikipedia, takes the position that what applies to it is US copyright law. Under that law, anything published in 1924 is now in the public domain, and anything published first in the US, or simultaneously in the US and another country with no copyright notice prior to 1978 (the effective date of the 1976 Copyright Act) was never protected by copyright, but was in the public domain from the date of publication. See &quot;Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States&quot;. Beyond that, the statement quotes would seem to be, in effect, a license permitting free but non-commercial use. That alone would not normally permit Wikipedia use, except under a claim of fair use. So Wikipedia use would be based on the date of publication, or the absence of a copyright notice, or both. As a long-term Wikipedia editor, I am confident that the images described would be usable in Wikipedia articles. They might or might not be up-loadable to Wikimedia commons, but I think they would be. The question of US Federal Government authorship is a distraction, this work would be in the public domain if the US Govt had no role in creating it.
No, you can't The last paragraph of the MIT License explicitly says the author is not responsible for damages (emphasis mine): THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED &quot;AS IS&quot;, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. A software license is not a contract. You didn't enter a contract with the developer or team. You found software online and decided to use the software. When you install paid software you are almost always presented with the EULA and check-box saying you agree to it. You took an action and agreed to the EULA. You didn’t have to agree to anything before getting access to the code under the MIT license. The software is offered &quot;as-is&quot; which is further protects the author. You'd have to show the author convinced you to use the software fraudulently. You're unlikely to talk to the author at all, and since the entire source code is available for review, it would be very difficult if not impossible to claim fraud. Finally, in the U.S. people have been sued using the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. None of the notable cases involve embedding a virus in an open-source project. Of interest is how the CFAA defines a virus (emphasis mine) (A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer; Simply writing bad code wouldn't be enough. You'd have to prove the developer acted maliciously. Hobbyists working for free don't usually have much money. The other major contributors to open source are large companies like IBM and Google, which have lawyers on retainer and deal with frivolous lawsuits frequently.
The Google terms of service do not prohibit using their translate programs to create something that you sell. TOS for using their API would be irrelevant, since that isn't what you're doing. There is no clear copyright issue: as far as I can tell, there is not yet any case law suggesting that the output of a program can be owned by the copyright-holder of the program. (Copyright must be held by a legal person, i.e. an actual person or a corporation, and a program cannot yet be a legal person). A human-performed translation is subject to copyright protection since what is protected is that which is created by the (translating) author, and a program lacks that creative element. A translation owes its existence to the program-user using a particular tool to create the work, be it a pen or a translation program. What is unclear at present is whether a person using machine translation in a permitted fashion to create a derivative work thereby gains copyright to that derived work.