Chris M. Could you...
-
George wrote: There seems to missunderstanding that CP statement "overrides" the original code licensing. I believe that cannot be the case. It is not the "curtesy" to honour license, it's a requirement. If the author of the code says that you have to put his name in the About box, you must comply if you want to use his code. Similiar, if the code is GPL, you must consider it as such - CP sumission guidelines can not "cancel" GPL. Unless he waives his rights. Since he is the author, and holder of the copyright, it is quite possible to do so. Cheers The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest.
Mr Morden wrote: Unless he waives his rights. Since he is the author, and holder of the copyright, it is quite possible to do so. You are grasping the straws here :laugh: Well, I'm tired of you lot, see the Dave's response[^], that should clear the things for ya ;)
-
Ok, basically by posting code on CP, the author is agreeing that the code can be published by CodeProject (and only CodeProject) and that it is reasonable to assume that the developers that come here are going to use the code in the applications that they develop. The wise developers in the audience will also realise that the code posted here is provided with completely and absolutely no warranty whatsoever, and that no one (not CodeProject, Chris, Dave, the author, or anyone else) is providing any kind of warranty or guarantee for the code in any manner at all. What does this mean? Code provided here could potentially violate the GPL, the LGPL or other license agreements, patents, copyrights or other legal instruments, and no protection is offered to the consumer of this code (the reader) in any manner whatsoever. Any risk resulting from the use of this code, or your reading of the articles presenting this code is completely in your hands (the reader). Each and every author contributing to CodeProject has the right to place whatever restrictions they wish on their submissions, beyond the fact that they have consented to their work being published by CodeProject. You can make no assumption about your right to use the published code without receiving approval from the article's author, unless they have listed appropriate permissions in the code, or in the article in which it was published. So this is why Chris pointed out that the "rights of use" is tied up in legal, it's a hairy beast with 4 heads. But Chris is right, it needs to be higher up the list, ahead of new features and emoticons, but clearly behind site stability and Chris having a vacation :-D David
-
Mr Morden wrote: Unless he waives his rights. Since he is the author, and holder of the copyright, it is quite possible to do so. You are grasping the straws here :laugh: Well, I'm tired of you lot, see the Dave's response[^], that should clear the things for ya ;)
I dont know why that is grasping at straws. It's a simple statement of fact. Anyone can waive their rights, provided their countries legislation allows them to do so. This applies to software licences, or signing a form before you go on a rollercoaster. Cheers The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest.
-
I dont know why that is grasping at straws. It's a simple statement of fact. Anyone can waive their rights, provided their countries legislation allows them to do so. This applies to software licences, or signing a form before you go on a rollercoaster. Cheers The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest.
Mr Morden wrote: Anyone can waive their rights but CP doesn't ask you to do that when posting code. -c
Though the cough, hough and hiccough so unsought would plough me through, enough that I o'er life's dark lough my thorough course pursue. --Stuart Kidd
-
But you id raise excellent points. Thanks for the input George. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
But you id raise excellent points. Thanks for the input George. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Chris Maunder wrote: But you id raise excellent points. Thanks for the input George. Right, but I was getting slightly overwhelmed here until the cavalry arrived ;) Boy, was that fun ;P
:D cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Tim Smith wrote: I still think GPL isn't compatible with CP given that IMHO it is more geared toward professional developers. I think GPL fits very well with CP submission guidelines since it does't restrict you from changing or distributing the code. It only requires you to expose the code that uses it. If that is no possible for you, then you should not use it. But one thing it sure - even if GPL would not be compatible with GPL the code is still under GPL. It might have to be removed from the site if there is an incompatibility, but you can not ignore the license just because it's been submitted at CP. License stays, always!. All you can do is to request the submission to be removed, but you can not make a code'a license void.
George wrote: It only requires you to expose the code that uses it. If that is no possible for you, then you should not use it. Well then I had CP totally wrong. I would say most of us here work for companies which produce proprietary software. The kind of software that we cannot open the source and show the world. Many of us even work for our own companies where holding onto our source is critical. Yes I can still learn a lot from CP, but if I see some GPLed code I like and I want to use it in a clients application then I cannot use it. Just on that note... how would I make use of that "knowledge?" Re-write the code with different variable, method and class names? I mean what if the code I saw was exactly what I needed, line for line perfect for my needs. Do I need to fudge things to utilise what I learnt? I have never been clear on this whole source code copyright issue. It seems to me that I must often write code which is 99% the same as code written a year ago by some hack in Microsoft or Adobe or somewhere. When presented with a problem it is very likely that in the same language two people will write very similar code. So how does one even police it? regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "Winning an argument on the internet is like winning a gold medal at the Special Olympics -- even though you're the champ, you're still a retard." - Kuro5hin.org Wrong but still funny
-
George wrote: It only requires you to expose the code that uses it. If that is no possible for you, then you should not use it. Well then I had CP totally wrong. I would say most of us here work for companies which produce proprietary software. The kind of software that we cannot open the source and show the world. Many of us even work for our own companies where holding onto our source is critical. Yes I can still learn a lot from CP, but if I see some GPLed code I like and I want to use it in a clients application then I cannot use it. Just on that note... how would I make use of that "knowledge?" Re-write the code with different variable, method and class names? I mean what if the code I saw was exactly what I needed, line for line perfect for my needs. Do I need to fudge things to utilise what I learnt? I have never been clear on this whole source code copyright issue. It seems to me that I must often write code which is 99% the same as code written a year ago by some hack in Microsoft or Adobe or somewhere. When presented with a problem it is very likely that in the same language two people will write very similar code. So how does one even police it? regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "Winning an argument on the internet is like winning a gold medal at the Special Olympics -- even though you're the champ, you're still a retard." - Kuro5hin.org Wrong but still funny
Paul Watson wrote: I would say most of us here work for companies which produce proprietary software. The kind of software that we cannot open the source and show the world. Many of us even work for our own companies where holding onto our source is critical. So hold onto it! ;) But that doesn't give you an excuse to use the code against it's license. It's the same thing like with "I can't afford the legal software so I stell it" excuse. It's just wrong and it's a crime too. Paul Watson wrote: Yes I can still learn a lot from CP, but if I see some GPLed code I like and I want to use it in a clients application then I cannot use it. Surely it's usefull anyway to see what approach others took to tackle the problem and avoid the mistakes their might make in any case. Paul Watson wrote: Just on that note... how would I make use of that "knowledge?" Re-write the code with different variable, method and class names? I mean what if the code I saw was exactly what I needed, line for line perfect for my needs. Do I need to fudge things to utilise what I learnt? Use a common sense. If you are copying a huge chunks of code into your app then you are using code, not knowledge. If you look at the code, and write it yourself it will almost never look the same. Not for any significant amount of code. It's not that you "rename" classes etc. You need to make them. Paul Watson wrote: I have never been clear on this whole source code copyright issue. It seems to me that I must often write code which is 99% the same as code written a year ago by some hack in Microsoft or Adobe or somewhere. When presented with a problem it is very likely that in the same language two people will write very similar code. If you take a piece of 5, 10 lines it's quite possible it will the same as any other code, even in the same application but doing a different things, because everybody is using a common contructs and patterns to code. However, it simple to say the difference between two pieces of code when you take a look at bigger picture, even if you rename classes or variables. It's the same thing like with shool home-work. Most often than not you can tell if a student was cheating, even if it was a math exercise. You might thing that there is only a small room for variety with something like math, but every teacher will have no problem to detect the cheat. ;) Paul Watson wrote:<
-
George wrote: It only requires you to expose the code that uses it. If that is no possible for you, then you should not use it. Well then I had CP totally wrong. I would say most of us here work for companies which produce proprietary software. The kind of software that we cannot open the source and show the world. Many of us even work for our own companies where holding onto our source is critical. Yes I can still learn a lot from CP, but if I see some GPLed code I like and I want to use it in a clients application then I cannot use it. Just on that note... how would I make use of that "knowledge?" Re-write the code with different variable, method and class names? I mean what if the code I saw was exactly what I needed, line for line perfect for my needs. Do I need to fudge things to utilise what I learnt? I have never been clear on this whole source code copyright issue. It seems to me that I must often write code which is 99% the same as code written a year ago by some hack in Microsoft or Adobe or somewhere. When presented with a problem it is very likely that in the same language two people will write very similar code. So how does one even police it? regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "Winning an argument on the internet is like winning a gold medal at the Special Olympics -- even though you're the champ, you're still a retard." - Kuro5hin.org Wrong but still funny
Paul Watson wrote: I have never been clear on this whole source code copyright issue. Paul, I have gone to the time and expense of paying lawyers to instruct me on this and I'm no better off. :-( Paul Watson wrote: When presented with a problem it is very likely that in the same language two people will write very similar code. This I disagree on, unless a software house is using extremly strict rules code varies a lot for the same solution. Sure increment i is either ++i or i++; but thats about it. If you ever have an interview situation get several candidates to write some simple code problem and you'll see what I mean. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Ok, basically by posting code on CP, the author is agreeing that the code can be published by CodeProject (and only CodeProject) and that it is reasonable to assume that the developers that come here are going to use the code in the applications that they develop. The wise developers in the audience will also realise that the code posted here is provided with completely and absolutely no warranty whatsoever, and that no one (not CodeProject, Chris, Dave, the author, or anyone else) is providing any kind of warranty or guarantee for the code in any manner at all. What does this mean? Code provided here could potentially violate the GPL, the LGPL or other license agreements, patents, copyrights or other legal instruments, and no protection is offered to the consumer of this code (the reader) in any manner whatsoever. Any risk resulting from the use of this code, or your reading of the articles presenting this code is completely in your hands (the reader). Each and every author contributing to CodeProject has the right to place whatever restrictions they wish on their submissions, beyond the fact that they have consented to their work being published by CodeProject. You can make no assumption about your right to use the published code without receiving approval from the article's author, unless they have listed appropriate permissions in the code, or in the article in which it was published. So this is why Chris pointed out that the "rights of use" is tied up in legal, it's a hairy beast with 4 heads. But Chris is right, it needs to be higher up the list, ahead of new features and emoticons, but clearly behind site stability and Chris having a vacation :-D David
David Cunningham wrote: it's a hairy beast with 4 heads Don't I know her? I'm sure she works at Safeways... :suss:
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Old Macdonald had a farm and I had it after I had the cows, I had the pigs I'm an animal shafter
-
Ok, basically by posting code on CP, the author is agreeing that the code can be published by CodeProject (and only CodeProject) and that it is reasonable to assume that the developers that come here are going to use the code in the applications that they develop. The wise developers in the audience will also realise that the code posted here is provided with completely and absolutely no warranty whatsoever, and that no one (not CodeProject, Chris, Dave, the author, or anyone else) is providing any kind of warranty or guarantee for the code in any manner at all. What does this mean? Code provided here could potentially violate the GPL, the LGPL or other license agreements, patents, copyrights or other legal instruments, and no protection is offered to the consumer of this code (the reader) in any manner whatsoever. Any risk resulting from the use of this code, or your reading of the articles presenting this code is completely in your hands (the reader). Each and every author contributing to CodeProject has the right to place whatever restrictions they wish on their submissions, beyond the fact that they have consented to their work being published by CodeProject. You can make no assumption about your right to use the published code without receiving approval from the article's author, unless they have listed appropriate permissions in the code, or in the article in which it was published. So this is why Chris pointed out that the "rights of use" is tied up in legal, it's a hairy beast with 4 heads. But Chris is right, it needs to be higher up the list, ahead of new features and emoticons, but clearly behind site stability and Chris having a vacation :-D David
So this is why Chris pointed out that the "rights of use" is tied up in legal, it's a hairy beast with 4 heads. But Chris is right, it needs to be higher up the list, ahead of new features and emoticons, but clearly behind site stability and Chris having a vacation :-D Damn straight, it is nasty. Just look how much trouble the phrase "permit all developers to freely use the code in their own applications". Even though I might argue the literal interpretation, I would bet money it wasn't what Chris intended. But until we get clarification, the literal is the best we have. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture