Is This True ?
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Depends on how you look at it. Some people view the site as a place to get ready-made components (although the quality varies), others look to the site as a way to learn ways to do certain things. The last thing a developer wants is to have something happen like having the people behind BearShare busted have their source code, with their name on it, found in confiscated evidence. It is why I will not post any articles on strong public-key encryption - if the code is found outside of the US, I may end up with a visit by the feds. Having a license is like an EULA in that case - if you purchase a U.S. application that uses PK cryptography, it likely has a clause in its EULA warning you that you should not take it or distribute it out of the U.S. If you do, you are at fault, because you agreed NOT TO when you accepted the EULA. I would not post anything that could be used for evil (a fast SMTP mailer, screen-scraping technology, cryptography, etc.) without some kind of restrictions on it. And until my being allowed to put a restriction on use becomes official and valid (according to the site), they do not get posted. No one is likely to use my Hyperlink control for anything really bad! :) A high-performance multi-thread-capable SMTP class can become a mass-mailer really easy, and I do not need to have millions of people seeing
JRTwine Software, LLCin theX-Mailer:line in a bunch of their spam messages! Peace!-=- James
If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
DeleteFXPFiles & CheckFavorites (Please rate this post!) -
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 fact that the code is freely available does not mean it is alright to strip all copyrights, change them for their own, take all credit for work, and sell it for $40 a piece. The code does come with a license which expressly prohibits use in commercial software. Sure, I agree, people will 'steal' and try to profit using source code if the can obtain it, be it codeproject or someplace else, there is no avoiding it, but that still does not make it right. As for marketing the project being harder than coding it, I bet I'll make a much better salesperson, than said salesperson make a programmer... :P
-
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
Good post. Now the real question is this. The codeproject submission statement (if you can call it that) is way more liberal than typical licenses authors include with their articles. Many authors expressly forbid use of their code in commercial products, others do not forbid it but require that the commercial software must contain their license. In situation like this which one overrides the other? According to CP 'license' any article can be used in any commercial software as long as publishers include original EULA/license, but if the original EULA says the code cannot be used in commercial software which one is valid and which one is not? That's the question I would like an answer to. My gut instinct tells me original author license is the one to be followed, not CP submission statement, but I would like someone knowledgeable to confirm it.
-
The fact that the code is freely available does not mean it is alright to strip all copyrights, change them for their own, take all credit for work, and sell it for $40 a piece. The code does come with a license which expressly prohibits use in commercial software. Sure, I agree, people will 'steal' and try to profit using source code if the can obtain it, be it codeproject or someplace else, there is no avoiding it, but that still does not make it right. As for marketing the project being harder than coding it, I bet I'll make a much better salesperson, than said salesperson make a programmer... :P
I agree that the original owner should retain copyright and credit, I don't agree that they should be able to post articles here with restrictive licenses on how it's used. That defeats the point of CP in the first place.
JazzJackRabbit wrote:
As for marketing the project being harder than coding it, I bet I'll make a much better salesperson, than said salesperson make a programmer
Absolutely, but I'm in the business of selling software and the amount of sheer hours and work that go into the business that are not directly programming or design related are easily 10 times more even for a small business like ours.
-
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.
John Cardinal wrote:
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 agree completely. The bulk of the confusion comes from people thinking that source code and a compiled application are the same thing. Cheers, Drew.
-
I agree that the original owner should retain copyright and credit, I don't agree that they should be able to post articles here with restrictive licenses on how it's used. That defeats the point of CP in the first place.
JazzJackRabbit wrote:
As for marketing the project being harder than coding it, I bet I'll make a much better salesperson, than said salesperson make a programmer
Absolutely, but I'm in the business of selling software and the amount of sheer hours and work that go into the business that are not directly programming or design related are easily 10 times more even for a small business like ours.
John Cardinal wrote:
I agree that the original owner should retain copyright and credit, I don't agree that they should be able to post articles here with restrictive licenses on how it's used. That defeats the point of CP in the first place.
Well, what is the point of CP? Surely I don't think it's feeding leechers? I would imagine it's a place where inexperienced people can learn and where acclaimed programmers can get credit for their work and exposure to potential employers. It is also a place where people share knowledge and help each other, if you can help someone with something, go ahead, if you have a question to ask, ask it, maybe someone will answer it. I really don't think CP is about putting food on freeloaders' table.
-
:mad: they are selling some others work i don't think that company will survive and it seems that the motto of company is to just make quick money they lack the original work and idea i never heard a bunch of thieves making and sustaining in this competitive market they will not stop with polite emails the author should send them a legal notice :mad:
It is Good to be Important but! it is more Important to be Good
-
John Cardinal wrote:
I agree that the original owner should retain copyright and credit, I don't agree that they should be able to post articles here with restrictive licenses on how it's used. That defeats the point of CP in the first place.
Well, what is the point of CP? Surely I don't think it's feeding leechers? I would imagine it's a place where inexperienced people can learn and where acclaimed programmers can get credit for their work and exposure to potential employers. It is also a place where people share knowledge and help each other, if you can help someone with something, go ahead, if you have a question to ask, ask it, maybe someone will answer it. I really don't think CP is about putting food on freeloaders' table.
JazzJackRabbit wrote:
Surely I don't think it's feeding leechers?
It's a place for knowledge, surely you aren't advocating that knowledge should be restricted in some way to certain people? The issue is really to me: should someone be able to put a restrictive license on code they post here? I've put a few articles up here, I've even received an email question from someone about an article I posted who was emailing from the domain of one of our competitors. That's just the way it is as far as I'm concerned, if you post something and someone sells it, great! If they put their own name on it then that's an entirely different story and should not be allowed to happen. You can't give away knowledge though and say "but it can only be used for this" besides being pointless from a reality based point of view it's not very giving of the person who posts the article in the first place.