Boilerplate for publishing code on Daniweb

[JamesCherrill]

Assertnull and I have cooked up a little Java utility that we think will be useful for early-stage beginners, and I'm planning to post it for anyone to use.
Is there some preferred short copyright/ownership/licence statement that I should include at the start of the code? I know that Daniweb owns the I.P. But I want it to be clear that students etc are free to use or adapt it legally for personal educational purposes or some such.

[deceptikon]

I know that Daniweb owns the I.P.

No. That was unfortunate wording in previous terms of service, and the intention was to absolve Daniweb of legal responsibility for storing and editing the content of posts. After a quick reading, it looks like the wording was changed.

I want it to be clear that students etc are free to use or adapt it legally for personal educational purposes or some such.

I'm a fan of public domain. Something like unlicense would be sufficient to put code out there in an unrestricted way while also protecting the authors.

[JamesCherrill]

What about https://www.daniweb.com/community-center/daniweb-community-feedback/threads/428309/daniweb-copyright-what-s-copyrighted. Dani's arguments for owning the copyright seem just as valid today?

[diafol]

The code snippets library quote (from JC's link) was an interesting one, where the whole point of it is that everybody gets to use it - although not claim them (snippets) as their own. Is this going to place a condition on the use (above and beyond DW's), so that an user cannot use it in their work unless it's for educational / personal use? My nose has just stopped bleeding, although I envisage another one soon :)

[Dani]

Is this going to place a condition on the use (above and beyond DW's), so that an user cannot use it in their work unless it's for educational / personal use?

JC is right in that I retain most of the same arguments as I wrote years ago in the thread he linked to. That being said, limiting code snippets to educational / personal use was never the intention, either then or now.

[JamesCherrill]

I never intended to limit use to educational etc either! I was just trying to avoid any issues about commercial re-use etc. I'm just happy if people use or improve the code we wrote without me being liable to any kind of legal action. I only started this thread to avoid clashing with Daniweb's interests as I understood them at the time. They"unlicence" covers my personal position perfectly.
J

[AssertNull]

They"unlicence" covers my personal position perfectly.

Mine too.

I understand the need to cover our bases with something like this with this boilerplate. In this particular case, I wouldn't imagine there's anything to worry about. It's a couple of levels above "Hello World" and intended to be. Thus there's nothing in there that can cause any damage, so I don't see how we could be sued for that. As far as people fighting over who has the right to make money over it, again it's a couple of levels above "Hello World". Any developer should be able to write it from scratch quickly. How much could it be worth?

Legally I would think that adding the boilerplate code protects other people from US suing THEM rather than vice-versa.

Is this going to place a condition on the use (above and beyond DW's), so that an user cannot use it in their work unless it's for educational / personal use?

Interestingly enough, I imagine "educational / personal use" would be the only commercial enterprise where you could potentially make money on something like this. You would get money not from it being outstanding code by the standards of the professional software community, but from using it in tutoring and other educational business ventures, particularly those aimed at the non-STEM market niche: parents, hobbyists, tutors, teachers, and college students in non-STEM majors trying to fulfill their General Education requirement and getting a C- in their Introductory Java class. I think there is a HUGE largely untapped market there. If anyone can make money off our code, they have my blessing, more power to 'em, and I won't be approaching them for my cut.

[diafol]

I just picked up on:

But I want it to be clear that students etc are free to use or adapt it legally for personal educational purposes or some such

I assumed it was limiting users to personal use only. :)

[JamesCherrill]

My bad. I wasn't clear in my original post. I wanted to say that personal/educational use would always be OK, even if, for some reason, commercial use wasn't. But my real intention was to gift it to the world, and I didn't know if I could do that within the Daniweb TOS as I previously inderstood them.

[JamesCherrill]

OK. In the absense of any further input over the next day or two (Dani???) I'll post the code and append to it a copy of the unlicence as follows:

This is free and unencumbered software released into the public domain.

Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or
distribute this software, either in source code form or as a compiled
binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any
means.

In jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or authors
of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in the
software to the public domain. We make this dedication for the benefit
of the public at large and to the detriment of our heirs and
successors. We intend this dedication to be an overt act of
relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights to this
software under copyright law.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", 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 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.

For more information, please refer to http://unlicense.org