|
Disappeared
http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/5005603/Compare-FineReport-and-Crystal-Reports.aspx[^]
I can only access to the Bing cache of the page (company restrictions on Internet access) but it doesn't look like a Free Tool. Can you take a look?
Geek code v 3.12
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
modified 19-Feb-15 10:38am.
|
|
|
|
|
It's gone, so I can't tell. Any idea who posted the original link?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
He's gone, he was the same one of the post above (finereports). Both the messages and the spammer are buried now.
Geek code v 3.12
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
|
gone
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
gone
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spam eradicated; spammers still seeking BRAINZZZZZ....
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can you edit your subject to "almost gone" as there are still some clingers-on
|
|
|
|
|
Done,
Ye ask and ye shall receive (or something like that )
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can change the subject back now.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member has been on my "watch" list before
I agree it looks like sock-puppetry but I haven't been able to pin it down - there are some genuine up-votes from others and I would have expected a sock puppet to counter the 1-vote to one of the answers. But there are several that have a (single) 5-rating yet the OP has responded with "doesn't work" or words to that effect.
|
|
|
|
|
Such cases are being ignored by large no of members. Don't know the reason exactly. Shortly we will be having a crap Codeproject just because of such ignorance.
I had a list of such members but now i'm going to reduce reporting frequency because now this is of no use,IMO.
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad
|
|
|
|
|
I'm actually getting harsher with my reporting and doing it more often
I used to have a "give them a chance" attitude but there have been so many of these jerks that they've soured the milk for the genuine newbie-who-knows-no-better
|
|
|
|
|
CHill60 wrote: I used to have a "give them a chance" attitude
Me too,but problem is many members look at us like we are from different planet. It's kind of double standard. Members are being too,too much lenient now a days which will ultimately result in poor content here.
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad
|
|
|
|
|
I've noticed something that's more suspicious than the votes: I went to the revisions page1 of his upvoted answers, and I noticed that most of them (even the one that's posted 5 minutes ago) are bookmarked 1 or more times. I find this suspicious because answer bookmarks are pretty rare, so having almost all of your answers bookmarked looks almost impossible, unless you have a sock puppet.
Of course, this is just an observation, and I cannot be 100% sure about it, so I'd say it'd be a good idea if @Chris-Maunder takes a look at it.
1 You can go there by going to http://www.codeproject.com/script/Articles/ListVersions.aspx?aid=[answer ID] .
The quick red ProgramFOX jumps right over the Lazy<Dog> .
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent catch...
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad
|
|
|
|
|
|
...and I didn't even get to deliver the final kick
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, please don't act against the person who performed the violation, I already talked to him, asked to remove the copy and just want some advice.
The violation can be considered as unwilling, but…
I recently published this game in my article, which is the pure HTML+JavaScript product, ready-to-play: Tetris on Canvas[^].
CodeProject does not allow publishing HTML and Javascript source directly, requires to pack it all in the source code file, so the game can be played only if it is unpacked. But apparently, if the sources are put on some Web site, the game will become immediately playable. This is what this member did:
http://www.codeproject.com/script/Membership/View.aspx?mid=2126810[^],
here: Tetris on Canvas[^].
Is it acceptable or not? To me, it was a somewhat unpleasant surprise that this person did not even talk to me about it, just created a copy and provided a link.
But the license itself allows free re-distribution. Formally, the violation is different: the license, more exactly, its permission statement has became inaccessible to the user, because of the direct access only to one HTML file housing the game. I explained why this is the violation in my reply where I asked to remove the copy: Tetris on Canvas[^].
I think the violation problem is clear enough. I've chosen MIT licensed because my work is the derived one; it was the decision of the author of most basic algorithms and the code I used just as the prototype; I provided complete attribution of this work and its author in my derived work. Apparently, this is enough reason for me to derive my license text from the original license. Also, I would like to keep this CodeProject article as the only original source of this code, which would be important, in particular, for updating the game to some possible newer versions.
My idea is to alleviate the future possible cases of such uncontrolled distributions by, say, adding appropriate references to the help element of my HTML. Then the link to the license, the CodeProject source and authors' attribution, invisible at first, still will be accessible to the users after clicking on help. But I certainly need removal of the copy from the site when this information is not accessible.
Any other suggestions? And how such incorrect re-distributions and the members doing such things should be treated?
Thank you.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Your timing is awesome. I was up till the wee hours this morning writing up a position paper on proposed changed to the CPOL and have been discussing exactly the issues you raise.
First: We're more than happy to post live javascript in your article. It will mean you won't be able to update it directly, but it would make for an interesting article.
Second (your concerns).
1. The MIT license does allow him to use the code as as long as he abides by the bit "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.". As you know he's not done this, and hence yes, he's in violation.
2. "keep this CodeProject article as the only original source". This was one of the main motivations for creating the CPOL. We specifically included wording to address both the code and the article to ensure authors have control and only have to manage a single source for their work.
To prevent redistribution issues you could simply add text in the game itself that includes a copyright and redistribution (MIT license) notice with link back to your CodeProject article. This won't stop people stripping it out, but at that point it becomes a common or garden plagiarism issue.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|