[solved]question about the gnu gpl

blutechgirl · 2015-10-24 21:52:42

i just wrote a simple arch linux installation script
i want to licence it under the GNU GPL v2
in the line:
Copyright (C) yyyy name of author

i want to use my github username instead of my real name

would there be any problem doing this
and is there anything anyone can think of
that i need to consider before posting my code

Last edited by blutechgirl (2015-10-24 23:10:20)

jasonwryan · 2015-10-24 21:58:53

As the author, you are free to assign copyright to whomever you see fit (assuming it is all your code).

Please consider the health of the community before posting it: the last thing we need is another "shortcut" for people to install a distro which they are completely clueless about.

Trilby · 2015-10-24 22:02:28

Two points. First - please don't encourage others to use your script. We discourage users from using *any* third party install script - and, quite frankly, your other posts about this script suggest you just barely know what you are doing. Writing that script seems like a great learning experience - but there is a big difference between encouraging someone to learn by writing a script and encouraging them to hand out their just-barely-working script. I might support someone in learning about boat making - but if they just barely managed to patch together a contraption that might pass as a boat, I'd be a bit concerned when they started chartering passengers.

But for the direct question at hand, first note that I am definitely not a lawyer, and the real answer to this question should come from a lawyer. But I'd advise against the following:

blutechgirl wrote:

i want to use my github username instead of my real name

A license is only as good as the copyright. Only the copyright holder can grant a license. So I don't trust a license offer unless the author of the work has made a clear and unambiguous claim to the work in question. This is done with a copyright line which stamps your name on it claiming that you are the original owner. I am doubtful that a screenname could be a legal identifier.

That said, there is almost no chance this would ever even be relevant for a simple script. But if you aren't going to do the copyright right, then why do it at all?

blutechgirl · 2015-10-24 22:07:41

i intentionally removed certian things that would allow it to work so novices will find it easier to follow official instrucions
it is intended to be an example for experienced users who want to automate the install

so yes i considered the health of the arch linux community when i decided to post it on github

jasonwryan wrote:

As the author, you are free to assign copyright to whomever you see fit (assuming it is all your code).

i am still not clear on if i can use my username instead of my real name

blutechgirl · 2015-10-24 22:12:18

tribly wrote:

That said, there is almost no chance this would ever even be relevant for a simple script. But if you aren't going to do the copyright right, then why do it at all?

all i want to do is make sure it stays opensource. can you make a bash script propieretory?

blutechgirl · 2015-10-24 22:18:53

i realize your concern and i will remove alot more from the script to the point where it is mostly comments explaining cetain things
i will make sure the script won't work until you implement each command yourself.
i would still like to post it though.

Trilby · 2015-10-24 22:33:48

blutechgirl wrote:

all i want to do is make sure it stays opensource

The license is what does this. Someone might try to steal your code and license it under a closed-source license. A solid copyright is what prevents this - at least in theory (in practice, sadly, he who has more lawyers wins). But a weak copyright makes it easier to steal. If push came to shove, how would you prove that the copyright with a screenname actually represented you? The theif could register that same screenname on another website and claim it was them.

can you make a bash script propieretory?

Yes. The ease with which code can be modified has no implications on the legality of doing so. I could write a bash script and license it with the restriction that it was not to be modified. Anyone with a text editor could, of course, edit it. But if they did so, they'd be violating the license and the copyright and (in principle) I could sue them for infringement.

Books have copyright protection - and the text of the book is even more immediately obvious to anyone who has a copy than is the code of a shell script. One can use a shell script for it's intended purpose without looking at the intellectual property content. One cannot use a book for it's intended purpose without looking at the intellectual property content. Yet books are rarely licensed under the equivalent of open-source licenses (e.g. copyleft).

But again practice and principle can diverge greatly when simple scripts are all that is on the line.

blutechgirl · 2015-10-24 22:40:55

thanks i won't bother with liscensing though
i don't have the time to bother with copyright

Trilby · 2015-10-24 22:47:55

Um ... ok.

I don't know how much time it takes to add "copyright <YEAR>, <name>" to a file, but that's up to you.

If you don't copyright and license it, then technically no one can legally use or modify it - it will not remain open source as it will never have been released as open source.

blutechgirl · 2015-10-24 22:50:02

tribly wrote:

If you don't copyright and license it, then technically no one can legally use or modify it.

so a completely unlicensed file cannot be legally modified

blutechgirl · 2015-10-24 23:10:00

i just won't post it. i watered it down to the the point where i can be sure a novice won't use it, but all it is now is mostly comments. someone might as well just write their own.
i don't want to deal with the copyright issue and i don't want to hurt the arch linux community by posting the full script.

Last edited by blutechgirl (2015-10-24 23:14:13)

Trilby · 2015-10-24 23:11:13

blutechgirl wrote:

so a completely unlicensed file cannot be legally modified

Technically no - at least not in most Western jurisdictions. A license doesn't protect a work (a copyright does) a license gives rights to people. Copyright is implicit (again in most nations) and without an explicit copyright notice and license granting rights, no one has any right to use, modify, or redistribute someone else's work. People do all the time anyways - but it is not the right way.

mpan · 2015-10-25 02:53:26

Sorry for resurrecting a thread marked with solved, but there is one important thing to note about using your screenname in a copyright notice. In most (if not all) jurisdictions in the world copyright is granted irrespectively of any actions taken by the author. Hence you can put an output from /dev/random there and not lose exclusive rights as the creator. Actually you can omit the notice, as it's mainly a traditional relict of american–only law that died in the second half of 20th century, and still your rights are maintained. The sole act of creation is what puts copyright in motion. Lawyers have a tendency towards fortifying documents with all they have in their armoury, even if it has completly no power, just in case — the "Copyright © <year> <name>" is an example.

As Trilby has said, a licence is a permission you grant to some other party. So — at most — using wrong name could cause the permit to not be given. But, again, under most if not all governments the only thing that is required is no more than any designation of the copyright holder. Multitude of writers used their pen names without any harm, similarly to other artists. To the extent that quite often their true name remains largely unknown to the general public: can you name Mark Twain, George Eliot, George Orwell, Lewis Carol or Woody Allen without googling? Puting aside if you would read it, but just for the sake of argument: would you feel wrong by reading (that is: using licence given to you by the author) "Fifty shades of gray" just because "E. L. James" claims to have written it, but the actual creator name is Erika Mitchel? Would Erika Mitchel sue you for reading her novel or would any sane judge accept her claim for the reason that you didn't knew her real name? I believe we all doubt that.

Finally, it's not even your concern — it's the licensee's problem if they trust you. You may safely put anything there. Until you are planning on going to the court because someone has used your work according to the licence with an invalid name, and I hope you don't, the whole question is completly unimportant. Most probably, just like nearly all libre software contributors, you can't make a good profit from filling a lawsuit, and this is what really makes the law work in this case. Hence the question is even more nonexistent. Using a licence like GNU GPL is usually an ideological declaration of the author more than a legal construct, like in the case of slavish licences.

There always may be a problem of some people, who may not trust people who use names in an uncommon form. You may choose some two–part name, advisably containing a common western given name to overcome this problem. But otherwise just get used to this bug (or fill a bug report to the author of a human brain ). Some people will not trust chinese, arabic or russian names, some will not accept one–part names (even if they're real) or initials. The good side is that libre software society is greatly influenced by the hacker community, where such supersitions do not hold.

Hope this has helped you.
____
¹ Samuel Clemens, Mary Evans, Eric Blair, Charles Dodgson and Allan Konigsberg respectively.

Arch Linux

#1 2015-10-24 21:52:42

[solved]question about the gnu gpl

#2 2015-10-24 21:58:53

Re: [solved]question about the gnu gpl

#3 2015-10-24 22:02:28

Re: [solved]question about the gnu gpl

#4 2015-10-24 22:07:41

Re: [solved]question about the gnu gpl

#5 2015-10-24 22:12:18

Re: [solved]question about the gnu gpl

#6 2015-10-24 22:18:53

Re: [solved]question about the gnu gpl

#7 2015-10-24 22:33:48

Re: [solved]question about the gnu gpl

#8 2015-10-24 22:40:55

Re: [solved]question about the gnu gpl

#9 2015-10-24 22:47:55

Re: [solved]question about the gnu gpl

#10 2015-10-24 22:50:02

Re: [solved]question about the gnu gpl

#11 2015-10-24 23:10:00

Re: [solved]question about the gnu gpl

#12 2015-10-24 23:11:13

Re: [solved]question about the gnu gpl

#13 2015-10-25 02:53:26

Re: [solved]question about the gnu gpl

Board footer