Is This True ?
-
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.
-
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.
John Cardinal wrote:
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.
There is a difference between letting others learn from your articles as well as using them at home for noncommercial use, or even possible for in-house development, and rebadging an article slapping your name on it (which in itself is a minor issue) and selling it. I agree, since you post an article open source, anyone who reads it is going to learn something new from it, new techniques and there is no way of stopping that. And I'm fine with that, actually I would encourage that. Because that's simply sharing knowledge. If a person goes to CP to learn about regexes, he probably does it because his job requires it, and he will utilize what he learned from CP, but if he is anyway decent, he is not going to copy the article/project outright and sell it. What the guy in question did, he simply repackaged already written app, added one minor feature and sold it. That is crossing the line. That is not learning, nor sharing, that's stealing.
-
Steal copyrighted software is a criminal act; this can be resolved with money, jail or both. Under the law stealing software from Microsoft or from a small guy has the same implications. Publishing an article on CP when the publisher does no give free use for commercial propose means that the publisher show the source of the project and it depending of the license it can be use to create a derivate projects as long the derivate project keep the original licensing, Open Source no commercial in this case. I saw a post that said that whatever you put on CP is for public domain, no… I don’t share that. People like Andrew Kirillov. And many more (me inclusive) spend hundred of hours on projects and they are released for different motives, as author public exposure, share knowledge or many more reasons, usually there are no restrictions for small projects, but usually authors put license restriction on projects that required many time/research and also when there are no free or similar open source projects on Internet. If CP doesn’t give full support to keep the copyright ownership and give the free will to the publisher to put under which license the project is released, CP will became a site where you come to steal software and publisher won’t feel confident to publish excellent articles like Camera Vision, in which case the quality of the project will be seriously affected where later the more interesting article will be how to capture a screenshot form Windows. I’ll follow this thread and I see how this all finish. If would be my case I could do the following, with two choices. 1) Not recommended, start to send e-mails to shutdown the project every day, threat about sue, tell a lawyer to send a letter about the criminal implications, until the project is shutdown and keep track of the company if it tries to create a “new” project that looks like yours and start legal actions in that case. 2) Recommended, start to send subtle emails every 4 or 5 months, nothing hard, just friendly like “please, could you remove the project because I didn’t give authorization yet to be used as commercial product” and so on, keep track of everything, web pages, where the project is published, links, advertisement, EVERYTHING. And wait one year or two, if this company still is selling the software is because they did a good amount of money about it, if you take immediately action you won’t get a dime and also you will have to pay to your layer. After one or two years take a layer, share the case with the lay
-
Steal copyrighted software is a criminal act; this can be resolved with money, jail or both. Under the law stealing software from Microsoft or from a small guy has the same implications. Publishing an article on CP when the publisher does no give free use for commercial propose means that the publisher show the source of the project and it depending of the license it can be use to create a derivate projects as long the derivate project keep the original licensing, Open Source no commercial in this case. I saw a post that said that whatever you put on CP is for public domain, no… I don’t share that. People like Andrew Kirillov. And many more (me inclusive) spend hundred of hours on projects and they are released for different motives, as author public exposure, share knowledge or many more reasons, usually there are no restrictions for small projects, but usually authors put license restriction on projects that required many time/research and also when there are no free or similar open source projects on Internet. If CP doesn’t give full support to keep the copyright ownership and give the free will to the publisher to put under which license the project is released, CP will became a site where you come to steal software and publisher won’t feel confident to publish excellent articles like Camera Vision, in which case the quality of the project will be seriously affected where later the more interesting article will be how to capture a screenshot form Windows. I’ll follow this thread and I see how this all finish. If would be my case I could do the following, with two choices. 1) Not recommended, start to send e-mails to shutdown the project every day, threat about sue, tell a lawyer to send a letter about the criminal implications, until the project is shutdown and keep track of the company if it tries to create a “new” project that looks like yours and start legal actions in that case. 2) Recommended, start to send subtle emails every 4 or 5 months, nothing hard, just friendly like “please, could you remove the project because I didn’t give authorization yet to be used as commercial product” and so on, keep track of everything, web pages, where the project is published, links, advertisement, EVERYTHING. And wait one year or two, if this company still is selling the software is because they did a good amount of money about it, if you take immediately action you won’t get a dime and also you will have to pay to your layer. After one or two years take a layer, share the case with the lay
Andrew you have a possible golden mine there, I hope you can take adventage of it.
-- If you think the chess rules are not fair, first beat Anand, Kasparov and Karpov then you can change them. Moral is, don't question the work of others if you don't know the reason why they did it.
-
John Cardinal wrote:
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.
There is a difference between letting others learn from your articles as well as using them at home for noncommercial use, or even possible for in-house development, and rebadging an article slapping your name on it (which in itself is a minor issue) and selling it. I agree, since you post an article open source, anyone who reads it is going to learn something new from it, new techniques and there is no way of stopping that. And I'm fine with that, actually I would encourage that. Because that's simply sharing knowledge. If a person goes to CP to learn about regexes, he probably does it because his job requires it, and he will utilize what he learned from CP, but if he is anyway decent, he is not going to copy the article/project outright and sell it. What the guy in question did, he simply repackaged already written app, added one minor feature and sold it. That is crossing the line. That is not learning, nor sharing, that's stealing.
No one (afaik) disagrees with what your saying, we've moved on from that point to the fact that article posters can apparently put a restrictive license on any article's code they post here which was news to me and something I don't agree with at all. I think it's fine that an article writer retains copyright for the article, but licensing a code sample or snippet or sample application? That's way over the line for a learning site like this one.
-
No one (afaik) disagrees with what your saying, we've moved on from that point to the fact that article posters can apparently put a restrictive license on any article's code they post here which was news to me and something I don't agree with at all. I think it's fine that an article writer retains copyright for the article, but licensing a code sample or snippet or sample application? That's way over the line for a learning site like this one.
Then probably the quality of articles will be affected, because why spend a lot of time/effort in put an article for somebody else to come steal and sell your work. If I don't feel protected why I would post deep technical articles?
-- If you think the chess rules are not fair, first beat Anand, Kasparov and Karpov then you can change them. Moral is, don't question the work of others if you don't know the reason why they did it.
-
Then probably the quality of articles will be affected, because why spend a lot of time/effort in put an article for somebody else to come steal and sell your work. If I don't feel protected why I would post deep technical articles?
-- If you think the chess rules are not fair, first beat Anand, Kasparov and Karpov then you can change them. Moral is, don't question the work of others if you don't know the reason why they did it.
Let's be realistic here, a license is not a patent. If we take your conclusion then it should be perfectly fine for anyone to post an article here and "license" it to exclude usage in commercial applications. If that's the case then I think CodeProject should have a license tag so that we commercial developers can filter *OUT* articles with restrictive licenses so that there can be no one coming after us for simply reading the article with a lawsuit at a later point in time as it seems you are advocating in your other post. Indeed many of the articles posted here are *from* commercial developers that take time out of their own money making ventures to write and post the article in the first place. No I simply can not agree, putting restrictive licenses on articles and sample code here demeans the whole site and aside from being a potential source of lawsuit revenue as you suggest in your other post I see no useful purpose for it.
-
Steal copyrighted software is a criminal act; this can be resolved with money, jail or both. Under the law stealing software from Microsoft or from a small guy has the same implications. Publishing an article on CP when the publisher does no give free use for commercial propose means that the publisher show the source of the project and it depending of the license it can be use to create a derivate projects as long the derivate project keep the original licensing, Open Source no commercial in this case. I saw a post that said that whatever you put on CP is for public domain, no… I don’t share that. People like Andrew Kirillov. And many more (me inclusive) spend hundred of hours on projects and they are released for different motives, as author public exposure, share knowledge or many more reasons, usually there are no restrictions for small projects, but usually authors put license restriction on projects that required many time/research and also when there are no free or similar open source projects on Internet. If CP doesn’t give full support to keep the copyright ownership and give the free will to the publisher to put under which license the project is released, CP will became a site where you come to steal software and publisher won’t feel confident to publish excellent articles like Camera Vision, in which case the quality of the project will be seriously affected where later the more interesting article will be how to capture a screenshot form Windows. I’ll follow this thread and I see how this all finish. If would be my case I could do the following, with two choices. 1) Not recommended, start to send e-mails to shutdown the project every day, threat about sue, tell a lawyer to send a letter about the criminal implications, until the project is shutdown and keep track of the company if it tries to create a “new” project that looks like yours and start legal actions in that case. 2) Recommended, start to send subtle emails every 4 or 5 months, nothing hard, just friendly like “please, could you remove the project because I didn’t give authorization yet to be used as commercial product” and so on, keep track of everything, web pages, where the project is published, links, advertisement, EVERYTHING. And wait one year or two, if this company still is selling the software is because they did a good amount of money about it, if you take immediately action you won’t get a dime and also you will have to pay to your layer. After one or two years take a layer, share the case with the lay
Putting aside the original incident this thread is referring to which is pretty clear cut and wrong by any definition I'm getting a very bad feeling from what you are saying: I just want to get this clear from you, what you are saying in essence is that it's a useful source of revenue to post articles here with a non commercial license and then sue people who make commercial software and have used or are suspected of using the contents of that article? Does this mean as a commercial software developer I should carefully read the licensing of every article and it's samples *before* I read the article itself because once that ideas in my head it could make it into an application and a lawsuit is on it's way? What you are proposing is a good way to kill off this site entirely. It's a slippery slope you are taking us down and I frankly suggest that CodeProject not accept any future articles that have a restrictive license of any kind attached to them.
-
Putting aside the original incident this thread is referring to which is pretty clear cut and wrong by any definition I'm getting a very bad feeling from what you are saying: I just want to get this clear from you, what you are saying in essence is that it's a useful source of revenue to post articles here with a non commercial license and then sue people who make commercial software and have used or are suspected of using the contents of that article? Does this mean as a commercial software developer I should carefully read the licensing of every article and it's samples *before* I read the article itself because once that ideas in my head it could make it into an application and a lawsuit is on it's way? What you are proposing is a good way to kill off this site entirely. It's a slippery slope you are taking us down and I frankly suggest that CodeProject not accept any future articles that have a restrictive license of any kind attached to them.
Licenses against the popular belief are not made to put restriction, instead are made to protect the author and the public domain. There are many licenses types like this http://creativecommons.org/license/ We can’t put aside the original incident, because is what this thread is about, under different case different thing can be say. CP is about share information, techniques, source code and forums, it is not a source code/project fountain to come get whatever is here and go. Andrew with the “restrictive license” is giving away 95% of the project, a programmer with a minimal idea and a little bit of moral can take 100% of the techniques used and create his own product in no time, but instead people like those takes the product wrap it and sell it, they know perfectly what they are doing for that reason is a criminal act and shall be punished. No one will come to you if you learn how it is done and redo it, in fact there are many reverse engineer techniques that are not considered against the law because the product DOES NOT share the IP with the original product. If you plan to use the source code from an article, ALWAYS you should read under which license it is given, it will take just one minute. And anyway if the article has restrictive commercial license always you can learn how is done and do it your self… “open source no commercial” is just telling you “ehh come on everything is already there, just learn how is done and do it on your own way” What kind of restriction do you see there? aside that you can't copy and paste? > what you are saying in essence is that it's a useful source of revenue to post articles here with a non commercial license and then sue people who make commercial software and have used or are suspected of using the contents of that article? You are misunderstanding what I said, if the article has a no commercial use, still you can do whatever you want with it, but it a crime if you wrap it and sell it like those guys are doing, now if those guys are committing a crime and they KNOW IT, then it is ok to play the same game, if you see offensive try to get money of it, then also you can try to go for a penal act and skip the civil. In a car you can drive to 100MPH and probably you will get a ticket and also jail inclusive if you do it on the streets or freeway, and what is the excuse? I didn’t read the DMV manual and the car gives me the horsepower to do it then “means” I can do it, and that’s not right. > Does this mean as a commercial software developer I
-
Licenses against the popular belief are not made to put restriction, instead are made to protect the author and the public domain. There are many licenses types like this http://creativecommons.org/license/ We can’t put aside the original incident, because is what this thread is about, under different case different thing can be say. CP is about share information, techniques, source code and forums, it is not a source code/project fountain to come get whatever is here and go. Andrew with the “restrictive license” is giving away 95% of the project, a programmer with a minimal idea and a little bit of moral can take 100% of the techniques used and create his own product in no time, but instead people like those takes the product wrap it and sell it, they know perfectly what they are doing for that reason is a criminal act and shall be punished. No one will come to you if you learn how it is done and redo it, in fact there are many reverse engineer techniques that are not considered against the law because the product DOES NOT share the IP with the original product. If you plan to use the source code from an article, ALWAYS you should read under which license it is given, it will take just one minute. And anyway if the article has restrictive commercial license always you can learn how is done and do it your self… “open source no commercial” is just telling you “ehh come on everything is already there, just learn how is done and do it on your own way” What kind of restriction do you see there? aside that you can't copy and paste? > what you are saying in essence is that it's a useful source of revenue to post articles here with a non commercial license and then sue people who make commercial software and have used or are suspected of using the contents of that article? You are misunderstanding what I said, if the article has a no commercial use, still you can do whatever you want with it, but it a crime if you wrap it and sell it like those guys are doing, now if those guys are committing a crime and they KNOW IT, then it is ok to play the same game, if you see offensive try to get money of it, then also you can try to go for a penal act and skip the civil. In a car you can drive to 100MPH and probably you will get a ticket and also jail inclusive if you do it on the streets or freeway, and what is the excuse? I didn’t read the DMV manual and the car gives me the horsepower to do it then “means” I can do it, and that’s not right. > Does this mean as a commercial software developer I
I'm not sure that you understand how risk averse commercial companies are. I would say it's probably a fact that a high number of people who come to CodeProject to learn something are employed working programmers. If their bosses find out they are going to a site and reading and using techniques illustrated in articles that have a no commercial usage license attached to them, they will quickly block all access to CodeProject. It's just not worth the risk to them. What you are saying is that if someone want's to use an idea in an article "licensed" for no commercial usage in a commercial application they should just take the idea and re-write the code. Let's suppose that person has a question about the technique in the article and posts it with the article forum. There is now a clear record that a person working for a commercial company has read the article. Now let's say they take the idea and rewrite it as you advocate and use it in a commercial product. It's not hard to imagine the author of the article seeing the finished commercial application that has a feature that does exactly what is outlined in the article and decides to sue that company becuase they "stole" the code. In the climate we live in with people suing everyone else at the drop of a hat even the merest hint of a potential lawsuit is enough to convince any reputable company that they should avoid CodeProject like the plague.
-
I'm not sure that you understand how risk averse commercial companies are. I would say it's probably a fact that a high number of people who come to CodeProject to learn something are employed working programmers. If their bosses find out they are going to a site and reading and using techniques illustrated in articles that have a no commercial usage license attached to them, they will quickly block all access to CodeProject. It's just not worth the risk to them. What you are saying is that if someone want's to use an idea in an article "licensed" for no commercial usage in a commercial application they should just take the idea and re-write the code. Let's suppose that person has a question about the technique in the article and posts it with the article forum. There is now a clear record that a person working for a commercial company has read the article. Now let's say they take the idea and rewrite it as you advocate and use it in a commercial product. It's not hard to imagine the author of the article seeing the finished commercial application that has a feature that does exactly what is outlined in the article and decides to sue that company becuase they "stole" the code. In the climate we live in with people suing everyone else at the drop of a hat even the merest hint of a potential lawsuit is enough to convince any reputable company that they should avoid CodeProject like the plague.
> If their bosses find out they are going to a site and reading and using techniques illustrated in articles that have a no commercial usage license attached to them, they will quickly block all access to CodeProject. A software license is protecting the author IP and not the technique used, if you don’t want to anyone to do what you do without pay royalty then you must patent that (if it doesn’t already exist). A patent will protect the author form somebody else to create something like a “hardware like a LCD monitor” or “software like G729 codec” from been cloned and used on commercial applications/products. I don’t think a single project on CP has a patent, and also I think it will never happen, because it will go against the CP policy. > What you are saying is that if someone want's to use an idea in an article "licensed" for no commercial usage in a commercial application they should just take the idea and re-write the code. Yes, there is nothing wrong with that as long the new code is base on the idea/technique and not on the source code itself. A clear example is in a common reverse engineer task. The boss hires a smart guy to reverse engineer a product or software. After the guy discovered everything the guy write an extensive and elaborated plan/specification to create a “new product” “how it is supposed to work and how it is supposed to be made” without give any reference to the original product or original implementation. The boss finishes the contract with the original guy and hires totally new guys that never knew the original guy and never heard about the project to be cloned, and gives the plan/specification and tell him “I want to create a product that follow all this rules”, for the new guy is a piece of cake create the new product because he/she has 100% the requirements to do it. Then the boss has a new product in a fraction of time/cost that doesn’t violate any law because the product is “different” to the original product (never will be the same) and the guy who made it never had any contact with the product to be copied before. Now if the objective of both products “original and clone” are the same there is where the patent will protect the original product. For that reason it is 100% ok to take the technique used for any open source code project and create your own solution, nobody will sue you for that. > Let's suppose that person has a question about the technique in the article and posts it with the article forum. There is now a clear record that a person
-
Licenses against the popular belief are not made to put restriction, instead are made to protect the author and the public domain. There are many licenses types like this http://creativecommons.org/license/ We can’t put aside the original incident, because is what this thread is about, under different case different thing can be say. CP is about share information, techniques, source code and forums, it is not a source code/project fountain to come get whatever is here and go. Andrew with the “restrictive license” is giving away 95% of the project, a programmer with a minimal idea and a little bit of moral can take 100% of the techniques used and create his own product in no time, but instead people like those takes the product wrap it and sell it, they know perfectly what they are doing for that reason is a criminal act and shall be punished. No one will come to you if you learn how it is done and redo it, in fact there are many reverse engineer techniques that are not considered against the law because the product DOES NOT share the IP with the original product. If you plan to use the source code from an article, ALWAYS you should read under which license it is given, it will take just one minute. And anyway if the article has restrictive commercial license always you can learn how is done and do it your self… “open source no commercial” is just telling you “ehh come on everything is already there, just learn how is done and do it on your own way” What kind of restriction do you see there? aside that you can't copy and paste? > what you are saying in essence is that it's a useful source of revenue to post articles here with a non commercial license and then sue people who make commercial software and have used or are suspected of using the contents of that article? You are misunderstanding what I said, if the article has a no commercial use, still you can do whatever you want with it, but it a crime if you wrap it and sell it like those guys are doing, now if those guys are committing a crime and they KNOW IT, then it is ok to play the same game, if you see offensive try to get money of it, then also you can try to go for a penal act and skip the civil. In a car you can drive to 100MPH and probably you will get a ticket and also jail inclusive if you do it on the streets or freeway, and what is the excuse? I didn’t read the DMV manual and the car gives me the horsepower to do it then “means” I can do it, and that’s not right. > Does this mean as a commercial software developer I
CastorTiu wrote:
I don’t think so, I think is a way to protect the author and the public in general, search on CP how many articles are post as “No Commercial Use”, you will be very surprised how few are and how good they are. And that’s ok, the author doesn’t want his/her IP ber used for commercial benefit, so be it.
That's a rather scary sentiment; I hope i'm misunderstanding you. Let me explain: I write code for a living. The food I eat, the roof that shelters my wife and me on these cold winter nights, the clothes on our backs... all paid for by money gained writing code. I can do other tasks of course, but none of them as well as this - and so I'd prefer to keep this occupation. Now, I also enjoy sharing the knowledge I've gained, whether by answering questions, writing articles, or posting code. And I've certainly learned much from the contributions of others over the years. However, code with non-commercial licenses I cannot touch. There is no separator in my mind for the knowledge I use at work and the knowledge I use at home; once a thing is learned, it cannot easily be un-learned. Of course, it would be no problem for me to hide the source of my knowledge on a subject; I could re-write any code I needed such that it bears no resemblance to the code I originally read... But to do such a thing for the sole purpose of avoiding a license seems to me a petty, sneaky thing to do, a shameful waste of time. And so, because I wish to be an honest man and because I wish to continue in my current line of work, I spend little time on such articles. Their quality, no matter how impressive, is necessarily lost on me.
---- I just want you to be happy; That's my only little wish...
-
CastorTiu wrote:
I don’t think so, I think is a way to protect the author and the public in general, search on CP how many articles are post as “No Commercial Use”, you will be very surprised how few are and how good they are. And that’s ok, the author doesn’t want his/her IP ber used for commercial benefit, so be it.
That's a rather scary sentiment; I hope i'm misunderstanding you. Let me explain: I write code for a living. The food I eat, the roof that shelters my wife and me on these cold winter nights, the clothes on our backs... all paid for by money gained writing code. I can do other tasks of course, but none of them as well as this - and so I'd prefer to keep this occupation. Now, I also enjoy sharing the knowledge I've gained, whether by answering questions, writing articles, or posting code. And I've certainly learned much from the contributions of others over the years. However, code with non-commercial licenses I cannot touch. There is no separator in my mind for the knowledge I use at work and the knowledge I use at home; once a thing is learned, it cannot easily be un-learned. Of course, it would be no problem for me to hide the source of my knowledge on a subject; I could re-write any code I needed such that it bears no resemblance to the code I originally read... But to do such a thing for the sole purpose of avoiding a license seems to me a petty, sneaky thing to do, a shameful waste of time. And so, because I wish to be an honest man and because I wish to continue in my current line of work, I spend little time on such articles. Their quality, no matter how impressive, is necessarily lost on me.
---- I just want you to be happy; That's my only little wish...
Many times “No Commercial Use” license are articles where no much information is found and the author put a lot effort in article creation, for somebody comes and make profit of it, in this case a “No Commercial Use” is enforcing you to learn how it is done and do it in your own way. If you think is easier to create your own project/technique from scratch without seeing the work from another people then it is good for you. In may case those articles save a lot of time because they teach me how to do it and I do it for my own. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." You always have the option in skip the reading of those articles.
-- If you think the chess rules are not fair, first beat Anand, Kasparov and Karpov then you can change them. Moral is, don't question the work of others if you don't know the reason why they did it.
-
Many times “No Commercial Use” license are articles where no much information is found and the author put a lot effort in article creation, for somebody comes and make profit of it, in this case a “No Commercial Use” is enforcing you to learn how it is done and do it in your own way. If you think is easier to create your own project/technique from scratch without seeing the work from another people then it is good for you. In may case those articles save a lot of time because they teach me how to do it and I do it for my own. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." You always have the option in skip the reading of those articles.
-- If you think the chess rules are not fair, first beat Anand, Kasparov and Karpov then you can change them. Moral is, don't question the work of others if you don't know the reason why they did it.
CastorTiu wrote:
If you think is easier to create your own project/technique from scratch without seeing the work from another people then it is good for you.
You missed my point: it's not about being easier, it's about avoiding the situation where, a year from now, I have to remember that a little utility I've been using at home is based on a library with a "no commercial use" license, and so I can't bring it to work. It's about not having to segregate my toolset into the tools i can use when I'm working and those I can't. Let me try to put this another way: for a while, there was a pretty good library for making nice toolbars floating around. The author put a lot of effort into it, and made it really slick. Now, he dual-licensed it: you could use the non-commercial license, or you could pay to use the commercial one. Meanwhile, I wrote a little utility for manipulating images, initially for my own use. It needed toolbars. I wrote my own toolbar code. Why did I not use the very nice toolbar library that was already written? Because then, if I'd ever brought my little utility to work with me (as I am in the habit of doing with software i find useful), I would have been in violation of the license terms. Why didn't I just pay for the library? Because then I wouldn't have been free to share my code without separating it from the commercial-licensed code. Also, while the author charged a fair price for the library, it was far more than what it was worth to me for such a small project. In short, the non-commercial license was of no more use to me the commercial license.
---- I just want you to be happy; That's my only little wish...