Does being Public Domain absolve the author/creator of liability? Specifically, I wonder if a programmer publishes some of her own original source code with a clear intention of it being in the public domain rather than under any specific license, can she be held liable for any problems/trouble arising from others’ use of that source code? I have read of advice saying that a programmer is better off legally to always specify a license which explicitly denies responsibility for its use rather than let the source code fall into the public domain. But I have not been able to find any details or specific cases regarding this question. The Wikipedia articles on Public domain and Public domain software make no mention of liability.
No Let's consider a similar scenario. If you made a beverage which poisoned a number of people, would you be absolved of liability because you gave it away for free? Of course not. As there is no contract between you, they would have to bring an action against you in the tort of negligence or negligent misstatement OR under consumer protection law. To succeed at tort they would need to prove that you owed them a duty of care; from Donoghue v Stevenson "You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonable foresee would be likely to injure ... persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably have them in contemplation ...". Most cases will founder on your inability to foresee the use to which your software may be put. Consumer law is jurisdiction specific but they generally contain warranties that what you provide (gratis or otherwise) is fit for purpose, merchantable and that you do not make false and misleading statements. There is a chance that a case brought under this sort of law could succeed as you have not limited the purpose, specifically declared that it is not of merchantable quality and have (presumable) said what it does so that, if it doesn't do what you said, you have been misleading and deceptive.
All the CC licenses permit anyone to use the licensed content, and to make copies of it for others. Some of them permit using it for commercial purposes, others (the ones including the -NC- clause) do not. Some CC licenses permit creating modified versions of the original work (derivative works), others (the ones including the -ND- clause) do not. I do not know of any standard license which allows users to create and distribute derivative works, but not to distribute the original. The license used by Project Gutenberg permits re-use and re-distribution, but if a fee is charged beyond recouping expenses requires the removal of the PG name and logo. One problem is that if derivative works are allowed, this would include works which are only trivial modifications to the original, which would have the effect of allowing distribution of the original. If the main concern is about commercial sales, possibly a CC-NC-SA license would effectively serve the purpose? That allows redistribution, including of derivative works, but forbids commercial reuse or distribution without separate permission, and requires all redistribution to be under the same license. Otherwise a new license for this situation might have to be created. It is often a good idea to have the assistance of a lawyer with IP expertise in creating a new license, or the wording chosen may have unexpected effects or include unintended contradictions. Or one could simply place a basic copyright notice along with text such as "Modified versions may be created only with permission from the author. Request permission at work-permisisons@example.com". However, if the work proves popular, there might be a large volume of requests.
If you use the reviewer's code, or code derived from it (e.g. if you just changed a variable name) then they own the copyright on that part of the software. If the reviewer describes a solution which you implement, or if you re-implement the code from scratch while taking ideas and methods from the reviewer's code, then you own the copyright on that code. However if there are only a few ways to implement something in code then the code is not creative and hence cannot be copyrighted. For example the regular expression in the question you link to is (as far as I can tell) the only correct solution to the problem: any programmer addressing the problem will have come up with that RE. In this the position is akin to a database of phone numbers: while the collection may be copyright (depending on whether selection or arrangement required creativity), the fact that Alice Jones has the number 012345 is not copyrightable, and neither is the alphabetical arrangement of names. Where it gets messy is the boundary between the two. The requirement to detect 4 or more repeated digits in a credit card number could be implemented in a number of ways, but whether there are enough of these to qualify any particular solution as "creative" would be a matter of fact for a court to decide.
Software qua property is protected by copyright *perhaps patent, in some jurisdiction). The general rule is that whoever creates the thing (book, song, software) has the exclusive right to the thing. If an employee of Company 1 writes software for Company 2, that employee might (rarely) hold the copyright, but typically that scenario would involve a "work for hire", where the employee is hired by Company 1 to do such tasks as part of his duties with Company 1 (which might then be given to Company 2). This would then be a work for hire, and the copyright is held by Company 1. If the actual author was an independent contractor, he would hold the copyright – see Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reed for analysis of the subtle nuances in making that determination. The concept "work for hire" which crucially involves the "employee" relationship would not be applicable to Company 2 paying Company 1 for a product, and as long as the actual author is an employee of C1, C1 has not created a "work for hire" in the legal sense. Without some explicit disposition of copyright, Company 2 is in a sketchy position. Since C1 holds copyright, they must grant a license to C2 so that C2 can legally use it; or, C1 must transfer copyright to C2. This does not happen automatically, and (if C1 does not want to remedy the situation after the fact) C2 would need to take C1 to court to force a resolution to the situation. At that point, the issue would be what C1 implicitly promised, even though they didn't put it in writing. It is likely that the initial exchange was along the lines "Can you make us a program that will do X?", and the answer was "Sure, that will cost Y", and then "Okay, go ahead, looking forward to the product". The courts would not simply say "Well, you didn't explicitly require a license, so you don't get to actually use the software that you paid for". However, it's a somewhat open question whether the court would order a license (of what nature?) or a transfer of copyright. The disposition would depend heavily on the facts of the case (what was said, what C1 actually did, what kind of business they are, what did creating the work involve...).
To answer the question in your title: Yes, software licenses are copyrighted. They are written works that involve (significant, expert) creative effort to create. The best solution would be for Grammarly to hire a lawyer and say "we want a new EULA. We think this one covers a number of points our current one doesn't". Most legal documents will be copyright for the same reason (there may be a few that are so stereotypical that there is essentially no creative effort in putting them together).
There are two licenses, and two parties involved who can sue you if you violate copyright by copying their IP without permission according their license. If you give source code that you are only allowed to give to Altera customers to non-Altera customers, Altera can sue you for copyright infringement. If you don’t give them the source code, the copyright holder of the GPL licensed source code can sue you for copyright infringement. Interesting question is who can sue non-Altera customers you give the source code to. And what happens if Altera customers think they are allowed to distribute the code because it is GPL licensed. So you not only commit copyright infringement, you also create a legal mess for others. And for everyone: even if code claims it is GPL licensed, you need to watch out.
To do so I used some images and Gifs which may be under copyright but since I don't earn money for myself and there is no company backing me I was hoping that there is some protection for private persons like me who just want to showcase the project. Sorry. If your website is public facing (i.e. not password protected and available only to family and close friends), you need to follow copyright law. There is no exception to copyright just because a project is run by an individual for non-commercial purposes. I am also insecure about the GDPR regulations since I give users the ability to create an account and try it out. Your profile says you're in the EU. Then you need to comply with the GDPR. Is there any way to protect me against greedy lawyers and companies? Could I write something like: "This website is a peace of art" and save myself with arguments like "artistic freedom" or "free speech"? Nope. A controversial website run by Peter Sunde had at one point a "free speech" disclaimer (similar to the one you propose) posted. However, Sunde did never use this defense in court: Finnish court slaps Peter Sunde with €350k fine. If he had shown up in court, I am pretty sure the court would have told him that such a disclaimer has no legal merit. The only protection that will make you completely safe is to adhere to the law.
Such use might well be illegal, and subject the user to tort liability, or possibly even criminal liability. Parties For this discussion let us call the person or company that developed and wants to protect the information D, the person or company that downloaded and wants to use the information U, and the person who placed the information on the server P. Trade Secret One possible source of liability is if D considers the information to be a trade-secret. The law on trade secrets varies to some extent in different countries, although there is a general similarity. Since no jurisdiction is specified in the question, I am going to look at the united-states law. Definition The LII page on &quot;Trade Secrets defines a trade secret under the US Uniform Trade Secrets Act (&quot;UTSA&quot;) as: &quot;information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process that: Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. A similar definition is given by the USPTO page on &quot;trade secret policy&quot;. Prior to the USTA, and still in those US states that have not adopted the USTA, trade secrets were/are protected under the common law. The LII page lists the common law factors, as given by the Restatement of Torts (1939) § 757, comment b: The extent to which the information is known outside the claimant's business The extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in the business The extent of measures taken by the claimant to guard the secrecy of the information The value of the information to the business and its competitors The amount of effort or money expended by the business in developing the information The ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others These factors may apply in other common-law countries. In either case, one must consider how the would-be user came to acquire the information, and thus how it came to be on the server from which it was downloaded. One must also consider whether it was the subject of &quot;reasonable efforts&quot; to protect its secrecy, under the circumstances. Circumstances If P was violating an obligation of confidentiality, such as an NDA or a duty as part of an employment relationship, then the placement of the info on the server was improper. In such a case its acquisition by another, such as U might constitute misappropriation. The same would be true if a person under an obligation of confidentiality arranged for the server to be indexed by a search engine, when it should not have been. The case for misappropriation would be stronger if U knew that the information was considered confidential by D, and also if P had informed U about where to find the info, or what search terms would uncover it. If P was acting with the permission of D, and P or someone else at D simply failed to realize that the server was, or might become, indexed, then the question is whether the steps taken by D to keep the info secret were reasonable. If this a case of &quot;inadvertent disclosure resulting from the trade secret holder's failure to take reasonable protective measures&quot; then there is no misappropriation, and the actions of U are lawful. That will depend of a judgement of whether D's actions were reasonable in light of the value of the info and the overall circumstances. If the placement of the info on the server is considered to constitute &quot;general publication&quot; of the info, so that it is no longer secret in any meaningful sense, then D may have a claim against P, but not against U unless U acted in collaboration with P. Copyright Law The documents downloaded from the4 server are almost surely protected by copyright. Directly incorporating them into an open source project without permission from the copyright holder would be copyright infringement, and would subject U to a suit for infringement. However, copyright does not protect ideas, methods, or facts. If U learns a method or idea from the document, and uses that knowledge without directly copying or closely paraphrasing the document, there is no copyright infringement and no claim under copyright law. Patent Law The question does not mention any patents. It is possible that D has patented the method describe in the downloaded documents. If so, and if the patent is valid, any use by U would be patent infringement, and the question of how U learned the info becomes irrelevant. However, most software developments such as data structures are not patented, so this is a somewhat unlikely, albeit possible, case. Notre that if the information is covered by a patent is is by definition not secret, as all patents must be openly disclosed. But they may not be widely publicized, and if U does not make a patent search, U may not realize that the document includes patented technology. This possibility is largely incompatible with the trade secret possibility, althogh it is possible to use trade secrets in connection with patented tech. Conclusion In short whether U may lawfully use then info, or is subject to a tort claim by D, or even criminal action, depend on the details of the overall facts. U would do well to take legal advice on the matter before proceeding to use the info.