We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.
61

Be proactive and contact the company who runs the service you are using, and ask them if they are ok with your app being available on the app store, and with the way it uses their services. This approach has benefits: If you ignore the email from this competing company, they might inform the service owners of your app, which might lead them to ask you to ...


49

Short answer: absolutely not. Everything a person writes, whether it is software or text, is automatically under copyright. The default state of any text is that it is completely owned by the author and no one has rights to do anything with it without express permission of the author. A few decades ago, an author used to have to assert copyright in order ...


44

Use your signature not in your code, but in a publicly accessible development log. Publish your code at a public Github repo. Include a Docblock with your name in the "Author" field. This way there's a public record of you being the actual author of the program. This may not qualify as "hiding", but in my opinion, it does. If a student decides to copy your ...


39

These answers were extracted from the book Patents, Copyright and Trademark, highly recommended. If you plan to buy one, notice that there's a newer edition than that I have. Does a single date imply that the author claims copyright of the file from that date until eternity? "The copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. However, under ...


32

That year in your code is part of a copyright notice. It indicates the effective creation date of your software, which affects the time window of your copyright. It is not, strictly speaking, related to the license (although the MIT license happens to include a provision that the copyright notice must be preserved in all copies of the software). You should ...


23

It is clearly open source and he hasn't released it under any license conflict. Just because you can see and even modify the source, doesn't mean it is open source. You cannot take this work and just give it a license, as it is not your work and you have not been granted a license to do so. You need the author apply a license to the work or make his ...


22

It is actually a requirement of the GPL license to put such a copyright statement in your source files (see here). One point that is common among all copyright licenses is that you can't claim authorship for something you didn't write. This isn't always explicitly written down for contributions to a project, but if you contribute a significant piece of code,...


21

The MIT License itself says: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. Just make sure to put your own name in the "above copyright notice".


21

I used to be an IP lawyer, so have experience with license-ese. I feel like the terms themselves are fairly readable and understandable, but then again, I'm marred by three years of law school and some lawyering time before getting my wits again and returning to hacking. Particularly since I'm not currently an active lawyer, this certainly isn't intended as ...


21

Ownership of the code means that you will be assigning copyright to them. In practical terms, that means that you will not retain any of their source code when the project is finished. That way, you can't be accused of reusing the code you wrote for them in other projects. This is a fairly typical arrangement; they are paying you to write code for them, ...


18

United States copyright law acknowledges, and accommodates, anonymous as well as pseudonymous copyright holders (see U.S. Title 17 Ch 3 Sec 302, for instance). The author (or their employer, as the case may be) hasn't automatically surrendered all rights to the work.


15

In commercial world, most companies charge not only for the core product but also for the support. Most often support involves any form of help by means of tool or personal assistance, to be able to make the product usable or resolve any issues related to product. By this token, code for testing the product equally qualifies a support tool and is an ...


15

Well, I am not a lawyer, but if I got this right http://www.contentious.com/2007/01/07/copyright-notice-is-the-year-really-necessary/ then "2011" (as the year of first publication) is sufficient. It would be also sufficient to not include any disclaimer for the copyright at all, since you own the copyright with or without a disclaimer. The "license" is ...


15

I am not a lawyer, but according to the MIT license: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. Therefore you may not remove the existing copyright notice. You may only add your copyright notice and license terms to portions of code that you own the copyright to, which ...


15

No, it's not OK to remove it. Even if you could get away with it from a legal perspective, it would be ethically wrong to do so. As to whether it will stand in a court: I'm no lawyer, but it looks to me like it's a pretty simple license, which takes it's power from the original author's copyright interest in the work. In that way, it's similar to other ...


15

Copyright is Implicit If it's personal, it's already copyrighted. And something like what Matthew Foscarini gave you in his comment would do just fine to really make it clear: Copyright 2013, Tony Royden, All rights reserved. If it's you say you release copyright that it's not. Licensing Isn't On the other hand, that just tells people you're the ...


15

The terms under which the text of the various versions of the GPL may be distributed are quite clearly given in the opening lines of the licences: GNU General Public License, Version 3: Copyright © 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. http://fsf.org/ Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing ...


14

No, as per Use of Adobe icons and web logos: You may not use Adobe product icons except under a written license from Adobe.You may qualify for use of an Adobe product icon(s) under a program offered through an Adobe Partner program. If you are not eligible for any of these programs, you may be eligible to use one of Adobe's web logos or a box shot of an ...


14

As usual: IANAL, but I'd say that... Yes: you can copy UI elements and color-schemes Elements of UI Design are NOT Generally Viewed as IP While You can patent functionalities and behaviors, you cannot patent or copyright or trademark a design, except if it's the design of a brand or logo for a registered trademark. Similarly, you can't copyright a color ...


14

"since these are looked at by the TAs and they might notice if somebody has the same program" I'd hope so, it's part their job to detect and punish cheating, plagiarism, and other fraud. And duplicating the work of others and passing it off as your own is that, cheating and plagiarism. So quite simple: don't give out your work to others. Help them write ...


13

I'm not a lawyer, but the answer is yes. Copyright holder is the person or entity that can claim right to having created a piece work, or to whom such right has been transferred. The MIT license is not about transferring copyright, but about granting legal right to use the (copyrighted) work as stated in the license. If you write a class, you have the ...


13

While I don't think there are any specific laws that would prevent you from doing this, personally I would be very sketched out about using someone else's web services that have not been officially published for the world. The reason being is not legal reasons but the fact that you are taking your eggs and putting it into a basket that can be easily taken ...


13

This sounds pretty normal to me. The startup is being careful to be able to show that they fully own all of the code in their solution. This is very important if they are eventually purchased by another company. That other company needs to know that no one is going to later claim ownership to the software they thought they bought. You might want to ...


12

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is part of the idea/expression divide. The short form is that ideas cannot be copyrighted, only their expression can. And if the idea has only one (or a small number of) expressions, those expressions can't be copyrighted. Whether or not this can be used as an infringement defense depends on jurisdiction and/or legal ...


11

I believe looking at the relationship between Mono and Dotnet answers this question. The Mono team can make use of the method definitions or public interface but they have to reimplement the internals. However the Android v Oracle case brings up a few other points that make this obvious distinction a little blurrier. In the AvO case most of the points being ...


11

The obvious advantage of a pseudonym: you stay anonymous if you want to (even if it may become difficult if you contribute to a well known project). This means several things: You are not bothered with emails from people who know your name and the fact that you participate to the project, If you work in some companies with strict policies, you avoid the ...


11

You must get the opinion of a lawyer. They could be just trying to stomp you out without any real legal case.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible