License
-
Yes, this is a minor deal, but when the article mentions a license, it refers to the Aricle License, not the source code itself. I assume the intention was to apply to the source code, but I have no idea for sure. If it was intended to apply to the article itself, there are a couple of licenses (GPL for one) that caution against using the license for documentation.
-
Yes, this is a minor deal, but when the article mentions a license, it refers to the Aricle License, not the source code itself. I assume the intention was to apply to the source code, but I have no idea for sure. If it was intended to apply to the article itself, there are a couple of licenses (GPL for one) that caution against using the license for documentation.
What's the difference to copyright?
Maxwell Chen
-
What's the difference to copyright?
Maxwell Chen
Actually article and code are quite distinct and each of them could be separately copyrighted. By common sense I deduce the same copyright applies to both article and code (if not explicitely stated the opposite), but anyway IMHO the question is legitimate. :)
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
[my articles] -
Actually article and code are quite distinct and each of them could be separately copyrighted. By common sense I deduce the same copyright applies to both article and code (if not explicitely stated the opposite), but anyway IMHO the question is legitimate. :)
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
[my articles]I asked, because I had read about some problems in using the GPL for documentation and publishing. Of course I can't find that information now....so maybe I misread it. But the other reason I mention it, the article specifically states that the license is for the Article, not being sure if it applies to the code as well, I would be afraid to use the code for fear that someone might take the wording literally and not allow the use of code or derivative of the code. I thought of this as I was reading an article that used the GPL license, but no source code was attached, only binaries. Just food for thought.
-
Yes, this is a minor deal, but when the article mentions a license, it refers to the Aricle License, not the source code itself. I assume the intention was to apply to the source code, but I have no idea for sure. If it was intended to apply to the article itself, there are a couple of licenses (GPL for one) that caution against using the license for documentation.
I've reworked the wording a little to make this clearer.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
I asked, because I had read about some problems in using the GPL for documentation and publishing. Of course I can't find that information now....so maybe I misread it. But the other reason I mention it, the article specifically states that the license is for the Article, not being sure if it applies to the code as well, I would be afraid to use the code for fear that someone might take the wording literally and not allow the use of code or derivative of the code. I thought of this as I was reading an article that used the GPL license, but no source code was attached, only binaries. Just food for thought.
Indeed. I agree with you on the overall. :)
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
[my articles]
