Copyright and commercial use

[mathijs12]

The Project Euler problems are listed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. This means I cannot use these problems for any commercial use, including making a variation on a problem and putting it in the puzzle section of our company newsletter.

Furthermore it does not seem possible to contact Project Euler to ask for a waiver for using a particular case. There exists a contact form, but it is made clear that it is only for "urgent technical matters". It seems that posting on this forum is the closest possible thing. In addition I am quite certain that some problems are not completely new material but are derived from existing scientific research or are otherwise quite trivially derived from well known material. However, this is not written down for each puzzle individually, so it is in fact unclear what the copyright status is for each puzzle.

Really, I am just a person who likes puzzles, creating them, solving them, and passing them on to other people. I don't understand why there is a need to limit the rights to use and copy individual puzzles. On the copyright page it is stated that: "Considerable effort and thought has been put into the design of each problem, and in that sense all material is new and original. For this reason problems must not be used for commercial purposes." For me, this does not follow. I understand the feeling that it seems unfair that the puzzles may be copied wholesale. But, if considerable effort has been put into them, what is the actual benefit to limit their use? Project Euler has a fantastic reputation, which is also due to the openness and availability of the problems.

[akirauler]

Excellent post. Necrobumping this because I'd otherwise start another post or contact the staff directly via email.

[hk]

If you have a reasonable request you can always contact us.
However, the non-commercial use is obligatory. No exception on that.

[euler]

@akirauler: I received the email, but I thought a public response would be more useful for others who might have the same question.

As explained on the About page at the main site, Project Euler came into existence in 2001. Since then it has continued to grow and would not be what it was today without the contributions and involvement of far too many people to mention. From the beginning, it has been the intention to provide high quality problems free of charge and Project Euler has remained ad-free. We have created a problem-solving sanctuary for our members by allowing them to enjoy all of the problems without the distractions of adverts or "premium" membership offers that have befallen so many other websites in our times.

Everyone involved has contributed their time, experience, and knowledge on that same understanding and have no expectation to receive monetary remuneration. Consequently, anyone seeking to "share" the content elsewhere, allowing them to financially profit, would be in breach of the copyright agreement.

Project Euler enjoys wide-spread popularity and continues to be discovered on the recommendations of its existing membership from everywhere across the globe, including colleges, schools, universities, and workplaces. Likewise, if you enjoy Project Euler and feel strongly that it needs more publicity, then please share the website link with your friends, colleagues, and anyone else who you feel would benefit.

[akirauler]

@euler: Thanks for the reply.

I agree with everything that you just wrote here. Your reply however does not answer the question of 'what's the reason our copyright agreement is this way?'. You clearly point out that that financial profit would breach copyright agreement. I would want to know why have we chosen our copyright agreement as it is now.

[hk]

Isn't that clear to you?
The reason is simple:
we don't want to profit (financially) from the work of those who contributed to the site without getting anything in return (apart from the good feeling it gave). And we also don't want others to profit (financially) from that either.
The current copyright agreement covers that principle very well.
Or is this a totally strange concept for you?
As it turns out the concept works very well.

[akirauler]

I appreciate the answer. The reason is not clear to me, hence why I am asking about this.
The concept is a very familiar concept to me. The current copyright agreement is very clear to me.
The reasoning is however something I am currently left without. PE is not getting anything in return (apart from donations) at its current state and even if we allowed commercial usage so that reason is not valid.

Am I too stubborn because I won't accept that denying people from profits, that are not away from anyone else, is wrong?

[euler]

Let me present a "childish" analogy...

A group of master toymakers spend time designing and building the most beautiful toys for children. They pay for a building where children from all around can come to visit and play with the toys at no cost, regardless of their background. They ensure that the building is a lovely place to be. There are more than enough toys for children of all ages. It is a happy place.

Then during the night thieves come in and steal some of the toys. They take them back to their own building and the next day they "open for business" and charge any visitors for using the toys.


Fortunately there are copyright laws that not only recognise that the behaviour of those thieves is reprehensible, but it is also illegal. However, it seems that you are struggling to appreciate that there are many people in the world who enjoy sharing their talents and expertise with others without needing to always profit financially. As hk pointed out, can you not imagine the joy and pleasure the toymakers get from just seeing all those children playing with their toys and having so much fun?

[akirauler]

Although I asked for an example I am still grateful for this analogy.

As long as the kids have enough toys after the thieves I don't see any issue in the story.

I do not struggle to appreciate that there are many people in the world who enjoy sharing their talents and expertise with others without needing to always profit financially. This is the foundation of voluntary work and copyleftism, both in which I have experience in, both which I vouch for.

If it's possible for me to still once again ask for a concrete example where Project Euler would take damage from opening up the problems for commercial usage I would be very happy. If not, I want to leave this thread with a note that I am not satisfied with the current solution and I encourage other individuals who find this thread, to seek out an ethical solution.

Furthermore, should I create a separate thread of asking about the source code of the website? I was thinking about hosting my own instance with questions that are available to everyone. Even commercial usage.

[byhill]

I'm not affiliated with the Project Euler team, I'm just a user.

That being said, whether or not you agree with the copyright doesn't really matter. The CC License is what the Project Euler team decided on, and legally, you have to abide by that. I think they've already went above and beyond by explaining why they decided on that copyright. It's okay if you disagree with their reasoning, but any more questioning beyond that is, in my opinion, out of line.

[pjt33]

Doesn't the history of open source software teach us that companies will ruthlessly exploit people's passion projects for profit whenever it's possible to do it without having to pay the people who actually did the work a cent? How many of the proliferation of software licences come from the reaction of someone to being burned in that way? I'm frankly confused that someone with a sig that looks pro-open-source would question why a volunteer group would want to prohibit commercial exploitation of its output.

[Allyne]

Although I asked for an example I am still grateful for this analogy.

As long as the kids have enough toys after the thieves I don't see any issue in the story.

I do not struggle to appreciate that there are many people in the world who enjoy sharing their talents and expertise with others without needing to always profit financially. This is the foundation of voluntary work and copyleftism, both in which I have experience in, both which I vouch for.

If it's possible for me to still once again ask for a concrete example where Project Euler would take damage from opening up the problems for commercial usage I would be very happy. If not, I want to leave this thread with a note that I am not satisfied with the current solution and I encourage other individuals who find this thread, to seek out an ethical solution.

Furthermore, should I create a separate thread of asking about the source code of the website? I was thinking about hosting my own instance with questions that are available to everyone. Even commercial usage.

Hi there,

I really appreciate your thoughtful approach to the topic. It’s clear you’re thinking about this issue from multiple perspectives, which is great.

Regarding your question about Project Euler and the potential damage from opening up the problems for commercial usage: the concern often lies in how the problems are used and whether they’re being exploited in ways that could devalue the community-driven, open-access spirit of the platform. Commercial use could lead to issues like:

Profitization of Free Content: If commercial entities start using the problems to generate income, it could reduce the incentive for volunteers to contribute, which might eventually harm the platform’s sustainability.
Quality Control: Some businesses might use the problems without adding to the overall community (such as posting solutions or re-packaging them for profit), which could degrade the quality and educational value of the content.
Reputation and Brand: If the problems become associated with commercial entities or are used in ways not aligned with the values of the community, it could alter the brand or reputation of Project Euler, making it feel more like a product than an open, collaborative learning space. Recently I started to improve my business by implementing various software. Recently I implemented software from OKR App, with the help of which I improved the process of setting and tracking tasks. It is worth trying in work.
That said, I completely understand the desire for a more ethical solution and think there’s definitely room for compromise. You mentioned considering a separate instance of the website with open access to the questions, which could be a great way to contribute to the broader community without impacting the original platform’s model. Hosting your own instance would also give you the flexibility to determine the rules around commercial usage and ensure that the content remains freely accessible to all.

Creating a separate thread specifically about hosting your own instance sounds like a great idea, as others might share similar interests or concerns. It could lead to interesting discussions about ethical approaches to open-source or community-driven projects in the long term.

I really appreciate your open-mindedness and encourage you to keep seeking solutions that align with your values. Good luck with whatever you decide!