Carlos Perez, CP Hero or Sellout
-
I'd say he's neither a CP hero or a sellout... just a developer trying to make a living. I bought the SharpLibrary for use at my workplace and have been happy with it so far. Carlos has provided VERY fast response to bugs I've found. The 'Pledge' question is a toughie though... I don't use code from here in my work projects anymore, the risk of someone changing their mind and saying "oh, sorry if this causes you any trouble, but I've decided that the code I posted here last year is no longer in the public domain." Even more annoying are the people who have a clause along the lines of "if you use any of this code in your project, you must give the author credit..."... I wouldn't have any problem doing so for a large class library that obviously has had a lot of work done on it, but I remember seeing a code sample here (or maybe on that OTHER code????.com site) that demonstrated one way of making a transparent splash screen. The code revolved around the use of the BitBlt function and really wasn't that earth-shattering (especially since the same implementation was on many other sites, written by other people)... sort of like saying "here's my method of logging errors to the screen in a console app, if you use any part of this, you must give me credit in your about screen: Console.WriteLine(...)" -pm
A pledge??? That's a crock. There is an unspoken/unwritten pledge in place already. It goes like this, if something I wrote or posted helps you then great use it. If you want to send me a thank you even better. If you now make a WRITTEN pledge it won't be long before that got trampled to. Forget pledges. They don't work. It all comes back to something my father was taught by his father and so on... A man is only as good as his word. If his word loses it's value so does the man. I could word this to be gender neutral but my point has nothing to do with gender my point is people. --- There used to be a time when contracts were a hand-shake and if somebody said I'll do it then it was done. If it wasn't their whole reputation was ruined. I still live that way and I think places like this have no choice but to live that way. If people don't live that way... Who needs them or their code? Rex Winn
-
I'd say he's neither a CP hero or a sellout... just a developer trying to make a living. I bought the SharpLibrary for use at my workplace and have been happy with it so far. Carlos has provided VERY fast response to bugs I've found. The 'Pledge' question is a toughie though... I don't use code from here in my work projects anymore, the risk of someone changing their mind and saying "oh, sorry if this causes you any trouble, but I've decided that the code I posted here last year is no longer in the public domain." Even more annoying are the people who have a clause along the lines of "if you use any of this code in your project, you must give the author credit..."... I wouldn't have any problem doing so for a large class library that obviously has had a lot of work done on it, but I remember seeing a code sample here (or maybe on that OTHER code????.com site) that demonstrated one way of making a transparent splash screen. The code revolved around the use of the BitBlt function and really wasn't that earth-shattering (especially since the same implementation was on many other sites, written by other people)... sort of like saying "here's my method of logging errors to the screen in a console app, if you use any part of this, you must give me credit in your about screen: Console.WriteLine(...)" -pm
Well, as pointed out in another post, the conditions of posting to Code Project include that the product is available for free use in commercials and cannot be time-limited. I am just saying that he could develop more advanced versions of his library for a price, but to publish code initially for free use and revoke that later is problematic. I had planned on using some of his SharpLibrary work, but if I had already release a product using his technology out on store shelves, and he later revokes my right to use it, than that could be a problem. Fortunately, I could point to the Code Project submission policy as a means of protecting myself from being dependent on a product no longer made available by the copyright owner. Thanks, Wes
-
Well, as pointed out in another post, the conditions of posting to Code Project include that the product is available for free use in commercials and cannot be time-limited. I am just saying that he could develop more advanced versions of his library for a price, but to publish code initially for free use and revoke that later is problematic. I had planned on using some of his SharpLibrary work, but if I had already release a product using his technology out on store shelves, and he later revokes my right to use it, than that could be a problem. Fortunately, I could point to the Code Project submission policy as a means of protecting myself from being dependent on a product no longer made available by the copyright owner. Thanks, Wes
Wesner Moise wrote: I am just saying that he could develop more advanced versions of his library for a price, but to publish code initially for free use and revoke that later is problematic. He can't revoke anything (words are not enough) once the source code is already posted. How could he defends his earlier code from being used other than hiring a bunch of costly lawyers, while at the same time what he's trying to do is make some money out of his work? I believe that what he's been posting on CodeProject are demos, light versions of a commercial product. This makes total sense to me. And I am willing to see much more authors trying to get money for what they do, especially if this is good stuff. Intuitively, CodeProject should promote the "media kits" by providing more affordable entrance fees. >Fortunately, I could point to the Code Project submission policy as a means >of protecting myself from being dependent on a product no longer made >available by the copyright owner. I think you are being a bit too serious here. I am only serious when I hear that on June 30, the european parliament is to vote software patents in europe, giving tools to big companies to stifle individual innovation.
-
For a number of months, I happily enjoyed looking and reading about the controls he devised. He's taught us quite a bit. He recently went to money route; that's fair, but there's one problem. The sad thing is that because he wrote his own set of controls. He indirectly kept others from contributing articles on similar controls. If there is an article on the topic, why write a second one, right? Now, we have controls unusable for commercial purposes. I think he should simply remove the limitations that he has placed on the controls. We have essentially lost a set of free that might have otherwise been developed if it were not his previous leadership. At least we have Magic which is a well-integrated and superior set of controls. What do you guys think? Also, how can you trust to use code that you obtained from Code Project; if, at anytime in the future, your right to use the code can be rescinded. Should we pledge to other CPians unrestricted use of libraries that we post, (or at least, indicate the full restriction at the time we post the articles). The notion of retractability makes CP a less desireable source of code. Thanks, Wes
Does anyone have a link that explains how Mr. Carlos Perez has changed the policy regarding the use of his controls? Nish
"I'm a bit bored at the moment so I'm thinking about writing a new programming language" - Colin Davies My book :- Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
-
For a number of months, I happily enjoyed looking and reading about the controls he devised. He's taught us quite a bit. He recently went to money route; that's fair, but there's one problem. The sad thing is that because he wrote his own set of controls. He indirectly kept others from contributing articles on similar controls. If there is an article on the topic, why write a second one, right? Now, we have controls unusable for commercial purposes. I think he should simply remove the limitations that he has placed on the controls. We have essentially lost a set of free that might have otherwise been developed if it were not his previous leadership. At least we have Magic which is a well-integrated and superior set of controls. What do you guys think? Also, how can you trust to use code that you obtained from Code Project; if, at anytime in the future, your right to use the code can be rescinded. Should we pledge to other CPians unrestricted use of libraries that we post, (or at least, indicate the full restriction at the time we post the articles). The notion of retractability makes CP a less desireable source of code. Thanks, Wes
Here is the link http://www.codeproject.com/cs/combobox/vsnetcombobox.asp?msg=496327#xx496327xx[^] As of today you can visit http://www.sharplibrary.com to buy a commercial version of what it used to be known as the UtilityLibrary. You can go to the starting FAQ section and look through the file: BugFixes.html to see how different the commercial version is from the old version on this article. In short, the SharpLibrary has 326 bug fixes/ improvements over this old version, it comes with 34 Controls/Components available from the Toolbox. It has full designer support for all available controls, 37 samples showing the use of every single control in the library, MSDN style documentation of all public types in the library, comes with full source code, three months of technical support and three months of free updates. As of today, I am also changing the use of the source code of this article so that it does not interfere with the commercial version of the library. I don't do it as an update to the article itself to avoid people thinking that I am actually updating or improving the article. The code in this article or any other article of mine can only be used for educational purposes, or in personal, non commercial applications. This code cannot be used for either commercial or Open source code projects, nor can be distributed in any way without my written authorization. You are welcome to acquire a commercial license should you want to use production quality code in you commercial application. Regards, Carlos H. Perez. Thanks, Wes
-
For a number of months, I happily enjoyed looking and reading about the controls he devised. He's taught us quite a bit. He recently went to money route; that's fair, but there's one problem. The sad thing is that because he wrote his own set of controls. He indirectly kept others from contributing articles on similar controls. If there is an article on the topic, why write a second one, right? Now, we have controls unusable for commercial purposes. I think he should simply remove the limitations that he has placed on the controls. We have essentially lost a set of free that might have otherwise been developed if it were not his previous leadership. At least we have Magic which is a well-integrated and superior set of controls. What do you guys think? Also, how can you trust to use code that you obtained from Code Project; if, at anytime in the future, your right to use the code can be rescinded. Should we pledge to other CPians unrestricted use of libraries that we post, (or at least, indicate the full restriction at the time we post the articles). The notion of retractability makes CP a less desireable source of code. Thanks, Wes
I'm not a lawyer, but I've looked into these issues somewhat and your proposal is very problematic. Simply put, the copyright holder has rights that simply can't be legally rescinded. In other words, if I hold the copyright to a work, no matter what I say when first distributing that work, I always retain the right to change my mind in the future and change the conditions of the use of that copyright. I cannot give up that right except by legally transferring the copyright to another entity and then they have the right to do with it what they will. If someone uses material that was distributed under an "open" type copyright and the owner later changes the copyright, say to charge for it, I believe (but may be dead wrong) that the original use is left unnaffected by the change as long as the work is unmodified. To my knowledge, this exact situation with software has never been tested in court. Furthermore, there is a concept that if copyrighted or trademarked material falls into common usage, and the holder makes no attempt to enforce their rights, that holder effectively loses commercial rights to it, but again, this hasn't been tested in court vis-a-vis software. Finally, if Carlos has figured out a way to make money off his hard work, all power to him. EDIT: If Chris wants to make it policy that Code Project will boot any articles/code with non-commercial provisions in their licenses, he is perfectly within his rights. This is the better way to go than to ask people to make pledges which are legally questionable.
-
For a number of months, I happily enjoyed looking and reading about the controls he devised. He's taught us quite a bit. He recently went to money route; that's fair, but there's one problem. The sad thing is that because he wrote his own set of controls. He indirectly kept others from contributing articles on similar controls. If there is an article on the topic, why write a second one, right? Now, we have controls unusable for commercial purposes. I think he should simply remove the limitations that he has placed on the controls. We have essentially lost a set of free that might have otherwise been developed if it were not his previous leadership. At least we have Magic which is a well-integrated and superior set of controls. What do you guys think? Also, how can you trust to use code that you obtained from Code Project; if, at anytime in the future, your right to use the code can be rescinded. Should we pledge to other CPians unrestricted use of libraries that we post, (or at least, indicate the full restriction at the time we post the articles). The notion of retractability makes CP a less desireable source of code. Thanks, Wes
He has a right to do what he likes with his code. Just as you have with yours. Really if you want to copy and use code from CP in a commercial app you should seek express comission from the author. I think most people are best of by using code and classes published to learn how to roll their own out. Wesner Moise wrote: He indirectly kept others from contributing articles on similar controls. Thats quite possible, I doubt it was on purpose though. Anyhow others can now publish there own unrestricted articles. I'm a bit touchy on this stuff at the moment, as I just recently found a large local company has been selling stuff I created years ago and never sought copywrite on. The B**&^ds could have at least paid me a commission. Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
Well, as pointed out in another post, the conditions of posting to Code Project include that the product is available for free use in commercials and cannot be time-limited. I am just saying that he could develop more advanced versions of his library for a price, but to publish code initially for free use and revoke that later is problematic. I had planned on using some of his SharpLibrary work, but if I had already release a product using his technology out on store shelves, and he later revokes my right to use it, than that could be a problem. Fortunately, I could point to the Code Project submission policy as a means of protecting myself from being dependent on a product no longer made available by the copyright owner. Thanks, Wes
Wesner Moise wrote: I had planned on using some of his SharpLibrary work, but if I had already release a product using his technology out on store shelves, and he later revokes my right to use it, than that could be a problem. A revocation would likely have no effect on shipping product, only on new product development. What kinds of rights a copyright holder can assert on "open source" is an unsettled legal question. Because of this, I strongly advise everyone to not use open source in commercial products. Wesner Moise wrote: Fortunately, I could point to the Code Project submission policy as a means of protecting myself from being dependent on a product no longer made available by the copyright owner. Not a chance. The Code Project submission policy has no legal bearing on anything (except to protect Chris and CP itself if someone submits commercial code in violation of that code's copyright.)
-
For a number of months, I happily enjoyed looking and reading about the controls he devised. He's taught us quite a bit. He recently went to money route; that's fair, but there's one problem. The sad thing is that because he wrote his own set of controls. He indirectly kept others from contributing articles on similar controls. If there is an article on the topic, why write a second one, right? Now, we have controls unusable for commercial purposes. I think he should simply remove the limitations that he has placed on the controls. We have essentially lost a set of free that might have otherwise been developed if it were not his previous leadership. At least we have Magic which is a well-integrated and superior set of controls. What do you guys think? Also, how can you trust to use code that you obtained from Code Project; if, at anytime in the future, your right to use the code can be rescinded. Should we pledge to other CPians unrestricted use of libraries that we post, (or at least, indicate the full restriction at the time we post the articles). The notion of retractability makes CP a less desireable source of code. Thanks, Wes
Sellout, No. Glad to hear he found a way to pay for his numerious months of work! Bad part, what use is CodeProject if code cannot be counted on to remain free. Upgrades, additional code, yes that would be fair to change licensing, but posting code for others to use and then later changing the license so it is no longer able to be used, is unfair to the entire community! At that rate, a person should be charged for every person who used their software as beta testers. Other people put large amount of hours into integrating code into their applications and testing the poster's code. How are they to be paid for all their work or the bug reports. In the article it mentions over 300 bug reports. How much does a company have to pay for beta testing? It is sad that someone with the talent of Perez and goodness to post, would later make all his articles of no use and bring damages to anyone (loss of time envolved) who used his work in their applications. Of coruse that is only to people that used it in commerical or open-source software (duh, 99.9% of those that would use them). I personally believe this hinders the good work that the CodeProject has accomplished over the years due the doubt of fair use of the code in the archives. If you cannot use the code there is no reason to have it. Don't want to go far down that road... Personally, I think it would be better to have an agreement with authors stating the article and code which is posted, shall remain fully public domain for commerical, open source or personal use. Future version may change but the currently posted version should remain available to all regardless. That is the only way the code has any value. ::Stepping down from soapbox:: Rocky Moore <><
-
For a number of months, I happily enjoyed looking and reading about the controls he devised. He's taught us quite a bit. He recently went to money route; that's fair, but there's one problem. The sad thing is that because he wrote his own set of controls. He indirectly kept others from contributing articles on similar controls. If there is an article on the topic, why write a second one, right? Now, we have controls unusable for commercial purposes. I think he should simply remove the limitations that he has placed on the controls. We have essentially lost a set of free that might have otherwise been developed if it were not his previous leadership. At least we have Magic which is a well-integrated and superior set of controls. What do you guys think? Also, how can you trust to use code that you obtained from Code Project; if, at anytime in the future, your right to use the code can be rescinded. Should we pledge to other CPians unrestricted use of libraries that we post, (or at least, indicate the full restriction at the time we post the articles). The notion of retractability makes CP a less desireable source of code. Thanks, Wes
I don't like that he has withheld bug fixes. Additional features yes, but I think that is stepping over the line after making use of CP. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
I'm not a lawyer, but I've looked into these issues somewhat and your proposal is very problematic. Simply put, the copyright holder has rights that simply can't be legally rescinded. In other words, if I hold the copyright to a work, no matter what I say when first distributing that work, I always retain the right to change my mind in the future and change the conditions of the use of that copyright. I cannot give up that right except by legally transferring the copyright to another entity and then they have the right to do with it what they will. If someone uses material that was distributed under an "open" type copyright and the owner later changes the copyright, say to charge for it, I believe (but may be dead wrong) that the original use is left unnaffected by the change as long as the work is unmodified. To my knowledge, this exact situation with software has never been tested in court. Furthermore, there is a concept that if copyrighted or trademarked material falls into common usage, and the holder makes no attempt to enforce their rights, that holder effectively loses commercial rights to it, but again, this hasn't been tested in court vis-a-vis software. Finally, if Carlos has figured out a way to make money off his hard work, all power to him. EDIT: If Chris wants to make it policy that Code Project will boot any articles/code with non-commercial provisions in their licenses, he is perfectly within his rights. This is the better way to go than to ask people to make pledges which are legally questionable.
Sorry, but I think your legal interpretation is incorrect. In fact, this very issue is why the CodeGuru people were able to sell a book based on articles on their site without having to ask for author permission or divide royalties. Cheers, Tom Archer, Inside C# Mainstream is just a word for the way things always have been -- just a middle-of-the-road, tow-the-line thing; a front for the Man serving up the same warmed-over slop he did yesterday and expecting you to say, "Thank you sir, may I have another?"
-
Sorry, but I think your legal interpretation is incorrect. In fact, this very issue is why the CodeGuru people were able to sell a book based on articles on their site without having to ask for author permission or divide royalties. Cheers, Tom Archer, Inside C# Mainstream is just a word for the way things always have been -- just a middle-of-the-road, tow-the-line thing; a front for the Man serving up the same warmed-over slop he did yesterday and expecting you to say, "Thank you sir, may I have another?"
[Edited] CodeGuru has the following as part of their submissions process: ...by submitting any such resource to CodeGuru, you grant to Jupitermedia Corporation a nonexclusive, worldwide, perpetual license to reproduce, distribute, adapt, perform, display, and sublicense the submitted resource (in both object and source code formats, as well as on and off the Web), and you acknowledge that you have the authority to grant such rights to Jupitermedia Corporation. By submitting the resource, you also grant your article's readers the permission to use any source code in the resource for commercial or noncommercial software. PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU RETAIN OWNERSHIP OF ANY COPYRIGHTS IN ANY RESOURCES SUBMITTED! Tom is then likely right that if CodeProject had this provision clearly posted, which it does not, Carlos would be prohibited from changing the copyright licensing provisions on the code posted on CodeProject's site, even though he would maintain the right to change the provisions for new code and in any other fora (provided they didn't require a set of licensing.) Regardless, I stated in my third paragraph that the question of what constitutes placing copyrighted material in public domain is still an open question. As is the question of whether material once placed in the public domain, which is otherwise still copyrighted, can be so removed. (My take is that the author still retains the copyright according to the law, but do not retain is the right to receive compensation for use of that copyrighted material. The law already states that if you don't register a copyright, you are entitled only to actual damages. Since you are already giving the code away, there can be no actual damages.) Having said all this, it would be very convenient for someone to sue someone else over open source copyrights and take that case as high as possible so these issues can be resolved. Perhaps Chris can publish Carlos's code and then have Carlos sue him. Or someone else can volunteer to use Carlos's code in commercial software.:)
-
[Edited] CodeGuru has the following as part of their submissions process: ...by submitting any such resource to CodeGuru, you grant to Jupitermedia Corporation a nonexclusive, worldwide, perpetual license to reproduce, distribute, adapt, perform, display, and sublicense the submitted resource (in both object and source code formats, as well as on and off the Web), and you acknowledge that you have the authority to grant such rights to Jupitermedia Corporation. By submitting the resource, you also grant your article's readers the permission to use any source code in the resource for commercial or noncommercial software. PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU RETAIN OWNERSHIP OF ANY COPYRIGHTS IN ANY RESOURCES SUBMITTED! Tom is then likely right that if CodeProject had this provision clearly posted, which it does not, Carlos would be prohibited from changing the copyright licensing provisions on the code posted on CodeProject's site, even though he would maintain the right to change the provisions for new code and in any other fora (provided they didn't require a set of licensing.) Regardless, I stated in my third paragraph that the question of what constitutes placing copyrighted material in public domain is still an open question. As is the question of whether material once placed in the public domain, which is otherwise still copyrighted, can be so removed. (My take is that the author still retains the copyright according to the law, but do not retain is the right to receive compensation for use of that copyrighted material. The law already states that if you don't register a copyright, you are entitled only to actual damages. Since you are already giving the code away, there can be no actual damages.) Having said all this, it would be very convenient for someone to sue someone else over open source copyrights and take that case as high as possible so these issues can be resolved. Perhaps Chris can publish Carlos's code and then have Carlos sue him. Or someone else can volunteer to use Carlos's code in commercial software.:)
Actually, much of the code that went into the CG book was posted YEARS before that notice - back when ChrisM and I ran the site. Regarding legalaties, I'm not a lawyer either. I'm just going on what the EW managers and lawyers were telling me after the purchased the site and this issue came up. Also, please understand that my remarks on this issue have nothing to do with Carlos specifically. I'm just talking in general. In fact, I know Carlos personally and we've even talked about authoring an "Advanced .NET UI Programming" book together. I'm actually quite pleased this his years of hard work on his awesome control library are paying divideds. He certainly deserves all the succes in the world. Cheers, Tom Archer, Inside C# Mainstream is just a word for the way things always have been -- just a middle-of-the-road, tow-the-line thing; a front for the Man serving up the same warmed-over slop he did yesterday and expecting you to say, "Thank you sir, may I have another?"