Is This True ?
-
Looks like that second link doesn't bring up the actual comment.
-
They can if they are @#$%^ criminals with a little bit of programming knowledge. Stupid suckers, I've never heard of something like this before...I hope this process doesn't become common. Freaking using open source to make quick $ :mad:
if (!interested){return false;} amclint
-
You don't know their circumstances, but they do look like Parasites ...
Regards Ray "Je Suis Mort De Rire" Blogging @ Keratoconus Watch
-
You don't know their circumstances, but they do look like Parasites ...
Regards Ray "Je Suis Mort De Rire" Blogging @ Keratoconus Watch
Who does?
-
Looks like that second link doesn't bring up the actual comment.
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
Looks like that second link doesn't bring up the actual comment.
Looks to me like it works
All the second link seems to do is bring up the same article as the first.
-
Who does?
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
Who does?
I don't know, but I am inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt. Its tough to do in this case but.
Regards Ray "Je Suis Mort De Rire" Blogging @ Keratoconus Watch
-
All the second link seems to do is bring up the same article as the first.
-
when clicking on the second links, my browser brings up the article and shifts down to the comment (i think the 28th)
Doesn't for me. Who is the author? Subject?
-
Doesn't for me. Who is the author? Subject?
-
I'm a bit confused what the problem is after reading those posts. Someone can not post an article to CodeProject with license restrictions, as far as I know it's public domain once it's posted here. So technically speaking there is nothing to stop someone from taking an article and turning it into a commercial program. From the authors comments it appears that the people took several of his articles and combined them into a new application. Sure it's more than a little parasitic, but surely the author of the article could have just as easily sold it themselves. By posting the source code here they have contributed it to the public domain. I'm not saying it's moral or ethical necessarily, but I think everyone needs to realize that once you post code here it's bound to be used in commercial applications. This is just an extreme example of that process. It's easily much more work to market and sell and support software than it is to write it in the first place so if those people selling it are also supporting it (and have created something with more features than the original main article) then they are bringing value to something that is normally free and less functional and are not as parasitic as it might seem at first. I don't get why more people don't publish their own software, there are many authors here who could be making a *lot* of money publishing applications based on many of the articles here, but they don't, it's their choice of course, but if they choose not to then they should not be surprised if someone else does.
-
The sad truth is that there is little that can be done about it. The person who stole the code doesn't care what people call him, he is making some money off of it. The guy who got ripped off can send 100000000 emails and it won't change a thing. He can hire a lawyer and it won't change a thing. Reality Check People: If you post software or code on the internet, assume that it will be stolen.
Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
I'm a bit confused what the problem is after reading those posts. Someone can not post an article to CodeProject with license restrictions, as far as I know it's public domain once it's posted here. So technically speaking there is nothing to stop someone from taking an article and turning it into a commercial program. From the authors comments it appears that the people took several of his articles and combined them into a new application. Sure it's more than a little parasitic, but surely the author of the article could have just as easily sold it themselves. By posting the source code here they have contributed it to the public domain. I'm not saying it's moral or ethical necessarily, but I think everyone needs to realize that once you post code here it's bound to be used in commercial applications. This is just an extreme example of that process. It's easily much more work to market and sell and support software than it is to write it in the first place so if those people selling it are also supporting it (and have created something with more features than the original main article) then they are bringing value to something that is normally free and less functional and are not as parasitic as it might seem at first. I don't get why more people don't publish their own software, there are many authors here who could be making a *lot* of money publishing applications based on many of the articles here, but they don't, it's their choice of course, but if they choose not to then they should not be surprised if someone else does.
Posting to CP doesn't make the code public domain. You still retain the copyright. However, there is a clause in the submit an article page that basically states that you give people permission to use the code without licensing fees and time restrictions as long as people don't remove you copyright notices or claim the software is their own. Now, what it really means legally is a question for the people dressed in blue. The laws will differ from country to country. I won't even get into the problems of code being posted from one country onto a server in another and then downloaded by someone from a third country.
Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
Posting to CP doesn't make the code public domain. You still retain the copyright. However, there is a clause in the submit an article page that basically states that you give people permission to use the code without licensing fees and time restrictions as long as people don't remove you copyright notices or claim the software is their own. Now, what it really means legally is a question for the people dressed in blue. The laws will differ from country to country. I won't even get into the problems of code being posted from one country onto a server in another and then downloaded by someone from a third country.
Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
Ok, in that case those people selling this guys articles could simply change their copyright to say "portions copyright ORIGINAL AUTHORS NAME HERE" and still continue to sell it. I just wonder if the issue is about someone else making money off an article authors work (which we all know happens to some degree for every quality article posted) or about credit. I wholeheartedly agree that the original article author should get full credit but I don't agree that they can "license" code they posted here for only non-commercial use.
-
I'm a bit confused what the problem is after reading those posts. Someone can not post an article to CodeProject with license restrictions, as far as I know it's public domain once it's posted here. So technically speaking there is nothing to stop someone from taking an article and turning it into a commercial program. From the authors comments it appears that the people took several of his articles and combined them into a new application. Sure it's more than a little parasitic, but surely the author of the article could have just as easily sold it themselves. By posting the source code here they have contributed it to the public domain. I'm not saying it's moral or ethical necessarily, but I think everyone needs to realize that once you post code here it's bound to be used in commercial applications. This is just an extreme example of that process. It's easily much more work to market and sell and support software than it is to write it in the first place so if those people selling it are also supporting it (and have created something with more features than the original main article) then they are bringing value to something that is normally free and less functional and are not as parasitic as it might seem at first. I don't get why more people don't publish their own software, there are many authors here who could be making a *lot* of money publishing applications based on many of the articles here, but they don't, it's their choice of course, but if they choose not to then they should not be surprised if someone else does.
John Cardinal wrote:
as far as I know it's public domain once it's posted here.
nope. according to my reading of the CP FAQ, CP doesn't override any licensing terms an author puts on his code.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
Posting to CP doesn't make the code public domain. You still retain the copyright. However, there is a clause in the submit an article page that basically states that you give people permission to use the code without licensing fees and time restrictions as long as people don't remove you copyright notices or claim the software is their own. Now, what it really means legally is a question for the people dressed in blue. The laws will differ from country to country. I won't even get into the problems of code being posted from one country onto a server in another and then downloaded by someone from a third country.
Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
I'm a bit confused what the problem is after reading those posts. Someone can not post an article to CodeProject with license restrictions, as far as I know it's public domain once it's posted here. So technically speaking there is nothing to stop someone from taking an article and turning it into a commercial program. From the authors comments it appears that the people took several of his articles and combined them into a new application. Sure it's more than a little parasitic, but surely the author of the article could have just as easily sold it themselves. By posting the source code here they have contributed it to the public domain. I'm not saying it's moral or ethical necessarily, but I think everyone needs to realize that once you post code here it's bound to be used in commercial applications. This is just an extreme example of that process. It's easily much more work to market and sell and support software than it is to write it in the first place so if those people selling it are also supporting it (and have created something with more features than the original main article) then they are bringing value to something that is normally free and less functional and are not as parasitic as it might seem at first. I don't get why more people don't publish their own software, there are many authors here who could be making a *lot* of money publishing applications based on many of the articles here, but they don't, it's their choice of course, but if they choose not to then they should not be surprised if someone else does.
John Cardinal wrote:
Someone can not post an article to CodeProject with license restrictions, as far as I know it's public domain once it's posted here. So technically speaking there is nothing to stop someone from taking an article and turning it into a commercial program.
I have tried to bring up this point on various occasions. People post code to this site (and other sites like it) with wide and varying restrictions placed on it, from completely free for any use to GPL-ed(!!!) code. Just because you can access a site with your browser and see code visible in it does not mean that it is in the public domain. The following can be found on the Article Submission page:
If you post to CodeProject then you retain copyright of your article and code.
You also give CodeProject permission to use it in a fair manner and also permit other
developers to use the sourcecode associated with your articles in their own applications
as long as they do not remove your copyright notices or try and take credit for your work.
(Emphasis mine.)There is nothing there that reads as "Public Domain". Also, many would consider outright theft not to be a fair manner of use. :) The application in question does not seem to acknowledge the original author in any way, shape or form, so it also breaks the "Code Project License" mentioned above. Author-placed restrictions are allowed here. How do I know, because there are articles that contain their own licenses that, after being reviewed and accepted, are present on the site. Previously, an article that had a author-placed GPL license on it won a competition on the site! If that is not a vote for allowing author-placed licenses, I do not know what else is. Peace! (Edit: The problems with licensing and assumptions regarding use are one of the reasons I do not post many of the things I have done and instead release them to a select audience under the JRTS-FSCL[^] - it will not stop a determined thief, but it should provide some protection if any FSCL-ed code is discovered within something illegal.)
-=- James
-
So I gather.
-
John Cardinal wrote:
Someone can not post an article to CodeProject with license restrictions, as far as I know it's public domain once it's posted here. So technically speaking there is nothing to stop someone from taking an article and turning it into a commercial program.
I have tried to bring up this point on various occasions. People post code to this site (and other sites like it) with wide and varying restrictions placed on it, from completely free for any use to GPL-ed(!!!) code. Just because you can access a site with your browser and see code visible in it does not mean that it is in the public domain. The following can be found on the Article Submission page:
If you post to CodeProject then you retain copyright of your article and code.
You also give CodeProject permission to use it in a fair manner and also permit other
developers to use the sourcecode associated with your articles in their own applications
as long as they do not remove your copyright notices or try and take credit for your work.
(Emphasis mine.)There is nothing there that reads as "Public Domain". Also, many would consider outright theft not to be a fair manner of use. :) The application in question does not seem to acknowledge the original author in any way, shape or form, so it also breaks the "Code Project License" mentioned above. Author-placed restrictions are allowed here. How do I know, because there are articles that contain their own licenses that, after being reviewed and accepted, are present on the site. Previously, an article that had a author-placed GPL license on it won a competition on the site! If that is not a vote for allowing author-placed licenses, I do not know what else is. Peace! (Edit: The problems with licensing and assumptions regarding use are one of the reasons I do not post many of the things I have done and instead release them to a select audience under the JRTS-FSCL[^] - it will not stop a determined thief, but it should provide some protection if any FSCL-ed code is discovered within something illegal.)
-=- James
Hmm...I didn't know that. Interesting. I think that's completely wrong, no-one should ever be allowed to post code here that has any kind of restrictive license on it. The credit and copyright part about the article itself I wholeheartedly agree with, but what's the point of posting code here that is restricted for it's usage, kinda defeats the purpose and goes against the spirit of CP in the first place.