2 Clarify statement based on comments
source | link

Since the library includes code that you've written, you are an author and should be recognized the same way that other authors are recognized. There's nothing wrong with asking about this. I strongly doubt anyone at the company would be upset by such a request; authorship recognition is standard practice when it comes to using third-party code. The particular license you used for your code will determine the specific way that the company must document your authorship.

The code that I've seen included in papers falls into two categories. How you should approach this will vary based on which applies to you.

You published your code with an explicit license

It's extremely important (for both you and the company) that the company's use of your code is compatible with the license you initially released it under. Otherwise, one or both parties could end up with legal problems. If you let us know what license you used, we can give some more-specific advice. In general, most popular open-source licenses would require the company to retain your existing copyright statements and license notices, and possibly to include a separate note indicating that the library includes code written by you. If the library will include a separate list of authors and contributors, it would not be unreasonable for you to ask to be included there as well.

You published your code without specifying a license

You need to be extremely careful. Even if you made the code public, no one has the right to use source code that doesn't have a license in their products, be they commercial or otherwise. International copyright law says that as soon as you wrote it, you owned the exclusive copyright to it. A license is how you indicate that you are granting others certain rights pertaining to the use of the software. Without a license, there is no grant of rights and a third party may not use your code.

With this in mind, the company must not publish their library at this time. It contains code that you hold the copyright for and that they do not have a license to use. Publishing the library would be a legal risk for them, and could put you at risk of legal liability.

Your best course of action here would be to release the source code yourself under an explicit license. You don't have to put it all together as a library for the time being. The simplest approach is to place each paper's code in separate files, store all of the files in a public repository somewhere, and include an explicit software license and copyright notice in each file. Ask the company to delay releasing their library until you have done this. They should now be clear to publish their library, provided they've met the terms of whatever license you've chosen.

If you aren't sure what license to use, the MIT license is straightforward, permissive, and easy to comply with. The Apache 2.0 license is essentially the same, except it also provides some protection against patent trolls.

Since the library includes code that you've written, you are an author and should be recognized the same way that other authors are recognized. There's nothing wrong with asking about this. I strongly doubt anyone at the company would be upset by such a request; authorship recognition is standard practice when it comes to using third-party code. The particular license you used for your code will determine the specific way that the company must document your authorship.

The code that I've seen included in papers falls into two categories. How you should approach this will vary based on which applies to you.

You published your code with an explicit license

It's extremely important (for both you and the company) that the company's use of your code is compatible with the license you initially released it under. Otherwise, one or both parties could end up with legal problems. If you let us know what license you used, we can give some more-specific advice. In general, most popular open-source licenses would require the company to retain your existing copyright statements and license notices, and possibly to include a separate note indicating that the library includes code written by you. If the library will include a separate list of authors and contributors, it would not be unreasonable for you to ask to be included there as well.

You published your code without specifying a license

You need to be extremely careful. Even if you made the code public, no one has the right to use source code that doesn't have a license. International copyright law says that as soon as you wrote it, you owned the exclusive copyright to it. A license is how you indicate that you are granting others certain rights pertaining to the use of the software. Without a license, there is no grant of rights and a third party may not use your code.

With this in mind, the company must not publish their library at this time. It contains code that you hold the copyright for and that they do not have a license to use. Publishing the library would be a legal risk for them, and could put you at risk of legal liability.

Your best course of action here would be to release the source code yourself under an explicit license. You don't have to put it all together as a library for the time being. The simplest approach is to place each paper's code in separate files, store all of the files in a public repository somewhere, and include an explicit software license and copyright notice in each file. Ask the company to delay releasing their library until you have done this. They should now be clear to publish their library, provided they've met the terms of whatever license you've chosen.

If you aren't sure what license to use, the MIT license is straightforward, permissive, and easy to comply with. The Apache 2.0 license is essentially the same, except it also provides some protection against patent trolls.

Since the library includes code that you've written, you are an author and should be recognized the same way that other authors are recognized. There's nothing wrong with asking about this. I strongly doubt anyone at the company would be upset by such a request; authorship recognition is standard practice when it comes to using third-party code. The particular license you used for your code will determine the specific way that the company must document your authorship.

The code that I've seen included in papers falls into two categories. How you should approach this will vary based on which applies to you.

You published your code with an explicit license

It's extremely important (for both you and the company) that the company's use of your code is compatible with the license you initially released it under. Otherwise, one or both parties could end up with legal problems. If you let us know what license you used, we can give some more-specific advice. In general, most popular open-source licenses would require the company to retain your existing copyright statements and license notices, and possibly to include a separate note indicating that the library includes code written by you. If the library will include a separate list of authors and contributors, it would not be unreasonable for you to ask to be included there as well.

You published your code without specifying a license

You need to be extremely careful. Even if you made the code public, no one has the right to use source code that doesn't have a license in their products, be they commercial or otherwise. International copyright law says that as soon as you wrote it, you owned the exclusive copyright to it. A license is how you indicate that you are granting others certain rights pertaining to the use of the software. Without a license, there is no grant of rights and a third party may not use your code.

With this in mind, the company must not publish their library at this time. It contains code that you hold the copyright for and that they do not have a license to use. Publishing the library would be a legal risk for them, and could put you at risk of legal liability.

Your best course of action here would be to release the source code yourself under an explicit license. You don't have to put it all together as a library for the time being. The simplest approach is to place each paper's code in separate files, store all of the files in a public repository somewhere, and include an explicit software license and copyright notice in each file. Ask the company to delay releasing their library until you have done this. They should now be clear to publish their library, provided they've met the terms of whatever license you've chosen.

If you aren't sure what license to use, the MIT license is straightforward, permissive, and easy to comply with. The Apache 2.0 license is essentially the same, except it also provides some protection against patent trolls.

1
source | link

Since the library includes code that you've written, you are an author and should be recognized the same way that other authors are recognized. There's nothing wrong with asking about this. I strongly doubt anyone at the company would be upset by such a request; authorship recognition is standard practice when it comes to using third-party code. The particular license you used for your code will determine the specific way that the company must document your authorship.

The code that I've seen included in papers falls into two categories. How you should approach this will vary based on which applies to you.

You published your code with an explicit license

It's extremely important (for both you and the company) that the company's use of your code is compatible with the license you initially released it under. Otherwise, one or both parties could end up with legal problems. If you let us know what license you used, we can give some more-specific advice. In general, most popular open-source licenses would require the company to retain your existing copyright statements and license notices, and possibly to include a separate note indicating that the library includes code written by you. If the library will include a separate list of authors and contributors, it would not be unreasonable for you to ask to be included there as well.

You published your code without specifying a license

You need to be extremely careful. Even if you made the code public, no one has the right to use source code that doesn't have a license. International copyright law says that as soon as you wrote it, you owned the exclusive copyright to it. A license is how you indicate that you are granting others certain rights pertaining to the use of the software. Without a license, there is no grant of rights and a third party may not use your code.

With this in mind, the company must not publish their library at this time. It contains code that you hold the copyright for and that they do not have a license to use. Publishing the library would be a legal risk for them, and could put you at risk of legal liability.

Your best course of action here would be to release the source code yourself under an explicit license. You don't have to put it all together as a library for the time being. The simplest approach is to place each paper's code in separate files, store all of the files in a public repository somewhere, and include an explicit software license and copyright notice in each file. Ask the company to delay releasing their library until you have done this. They should now be clear to publish their library, provided they've met the terms of whatever license you've chosen.

If you aren't sure what license to use, the MIT license is straightforward, permissive, and easy to comply with. The Apache 2.0 license is essentially the same, except it also provides some protection against patent trolls.