Given the sheer volume of software that is implemented with the help of boilerplates and templates, I think it would be good to clarify as much as possible when care needs to be given to ownership, copyright, and licensing.
I think this is especially interesting with editors & IDEs that collect & use coding patterns from the internet.
My understanding is that in many cases, using or following a boilerplate is like using or following a pattern and not subject to copyright. Software patents are another discussion, don't think it should be a real issue in many cases. Here are some references I found about using or following a pattern:
In some cases a boilerplate or template could be considered "canonical", or the best & simplest alternative for an implementation. My understanding is that at least up to a certain point, this would be like using a pattern and not subject to copyright.
Here is a related discussion on Stack Exchange with quite a bit of useful-looking info:
Considering that the generated artifacts are simple and likely canonical, I am thinking this effort was overkill.
So my understanding and conclusion so far is that for boilerplates & templates that are not too complex, the copyright should not be a real issue.
I think it would be ideal to gain a better, more concrete understanding over time.
P.S. I think it is good practice to give reference when using boilerplate & template code in any case. This is similar to projects giving credit for using public domain code.
Some projects have been using public domain licenses to avoid ownership & copyright issues. Unfortunately there had been questions in some jurisdictions such as Germany.
Given the sheer volume of software that is implemented with the help of boilerplates and templates, I think it would be good to clarify as much as possible when care needs to be given to ownership, copyright, and licensing.
I think this is especially interesting with editors & IDEs that collect & use coding patterns from the internet.
I found this answer for boilerplate code:
with reference to idea-expression distinction from Wikipedia:
My understanding is that in many cases, using or following a boilerplate is like using or following a pattern and not subject to copyright. Software patents are another discussion, don't think it should be a real issue in many cases. Here are some references I found about using or following a pattern:
In some cases a boilerplate or template could be considered "canonical", or the best & simplest alternative for an implementation. My understanding is that at least up to a certain point, this would be like using a pattern and not subject to copyright.
Here is a related discussion on Stack Exchange with quite a bit of useful-looking info:
and this blog article happened to show up in the top-right corner as well:
I had made a utility in the past that generates Apache Cordova projects programmatically to avoid potential questions about using templates: https://www.npmjs.com/package/generate-cordova-package
Considering that the generated artifacts are simple and likely canonical, I am thinking this effort was overkill.
So my understanding and conclusion so far is that for boilerplates & templates that are not too complex, the copyright should not be a real issue.
I think it would be ideal to gain a better, more concrete understanding over time.
P.S. I think it is good practice to give reference when using boilerplate & template code in any case. This is similar to projects giving credit for using public domain code.
Some projects have been using public domain licenses to avoid ownership & copyright issues. Unfortunately there had been questions in some jurisdictions such as Germany.