|
I agree that the relevant license should be made more visible - perhaps by having a combo box in the header info area, where the author can select "GPL, LGPL, Apache, unrestricted, other, etc.". Then a view filter (or search filter) would be simple to implement.
It would also be handy for authors if the CP article submission wizard would include links to relevant licenses and what they mean.
But what if I wanted to use some license-restricted code that was presented in an article, by contacting author and making some arrangement? I would not want CP to disallow this, or refuse to publish the article. In fact, the current policy (which has existed from beginning) is to allow its members to interact as they want. This has certainly benefited me, and in some cases also the author, when I recommend their product to my clients.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you're missing the point, there should be no license allowed whatsoever, it's just plain crazy.
This has nothing to do with disallowing members to contact each other, I don't know where you get that idea from.
|
|
|
|
|
I vote that we don't accept any "licensed" code at all.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
The footer shows this message in CP
Article content copyright <authorname>, 2007<br />
everything else Copyright © CodeProject, 1999-2006
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand how this is relevant to what I posted about, perhaps you can clarify.
|
|
|
|
|
John,
It was an example of how CodeProject is currently showing and/or distinguishing between how CP shows article and site copyright.
|
|
|
|
|
Copyrighting and licensing are two separate issues (though they compliment one another). Copyright addresses ownership. Licensing addresses use.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
my views
1-> code project is for sharing knowledge and not for advertising so the code posted here with the idea of
posting code and restricting it commercially is just advertising
2-> as in Andrews case a company used his dlls as it is removing all copyright notices i think this is morally
incorrect (legal aspect i don't know much)
my suggestion which i gave once before that if any author want to advertise his code CP should provide a
platform for them and take charges for overriding licenses (ie commercially restricted articles should pay CP
some thing in cash also along with code and article )
cause CP is a really very big platform and people are advertising free of cost some of them just ruin the
environment in message posts also (you know him/them)
It is Good to be Important but!
it is more Important to be Good
|
|
|
|
|
Amar Chaudhary wrote: 1-> code project is for sharing knowledge and not for advertising so the code posted here with the idea of
posting code and restricting it commercially is just advertising
Restricting its commercial use is not advertising, no one is buying anything. Putting something to the effect of you must contact me to purchase a license for commercial use is. However, I have yet to encounter an article that contains copy like that.
Peace!
-=- James Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not!<HR>If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFiles
|
|
|
|
|
James R. Twine wrote: Restricting its commercial use is not advertising, no one is buying anything. Putting something to the effect of you must contact me to purchase a license for commercial use is. However, I have yet to encounter an article that contains copy like that.
There's at least one RS232 article here that's licensed free for noncomercial use. The code is available for commercial license from the company that wrote it for a few hundred bucks.
--
Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
|
|
|
|
|
dan neely wrote: There's at least one RS232 article here that's licensed free for noncomercial use. The code is available for commercial license from the company that wrote it for a few hundred bucks.
That is just an example of what I said - what is the point here? Or was that the point, just to show an examples of what I meant?
-- modified at 14:42 Friday 5th January, 2007
Never mind - the "I have yet to see an article..." part just kicked in within my brain...  
Peace!
-=- James Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not!<HR>If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFiles
|
|
|
|
|
I would never attempt to attach a license to code or ideas posted on CodeProject or anywhere else.
A) If a rule can't be enforced why make it?
B) There will always be people who will violate a rule.
C) Would you attend a college/seminar/whatever that said you couldn't use what was said?
But to each his own.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: A) If a rule can't be enforced why make it?
Some restrictions protect the author.
PIEBALDconsult wrote: B) There will always be people who will violate a rule.
And? I still lock my car even though auto theives are around.
PIEBALDconsult wrote: C) Would you attend a college/seminar/whatever that said you couldn't use what was said?
No, but such things are usually paid for.
Peace!
-=- James Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not!<HR>If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFiles
|
|
|
|
|
I agree - it seems to me to be against the spirit of Codeproject to allow restrictive licences on code examplers that are published here. I really hate finding I can't reuse even a few lines of code out of an example because it's GPL'd or something like that. I was under the impression that there was a default BCD like licence though (i.e. any use provided copyright statements stay intact in the source and you don't misrepresent the origens of the code).
I also agree that it is a different situation when an article provides a complete and useful application - I can see justification for a licence such as GPL or a restriction on commercial reuse in that case.
Niall.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't confuse patents and copyright. If the author has placed a restrictive license on the software, you can't just copy it verbatim. It does not however prohibit you from reading the article and code, and make use of the ideas within. Only patents offer that kind of protection.
--
Made From Meat By-Products
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, but there is open talk here of the best way to sue someone who uses something from an article with a non-commercial use license. Whether it will win or not it's still a risk and something coporations are extremely averse to.
|
|
|
|
|
I think:
* articles posted here must not be protected by patents
* source code licenses should be non-intrusive
The patents argument is self explanatory. That is a big threat to any company in this day and age.
By non-intrusive source code licenses I mean licenses that:
1) does not affect your own code (such as GPL)
2) does not stipulate distribution (binary only)
3) does not require you to publish derivative works
I do think however that any author should have the right to protect his and his work's name. For instance, suppose someone posts an article about an application here, together with its source code. The code is free to use in any way you'd like. In such cases, I think it's quite alright if the author adds the following license clause "publish the work, or derivative work, in any way you'd like, but not with my name or my application's name".
I also think it's quite alright if the author requires you to retain his copyright notices in the source code.
By requiring authors NOT to use any kind of licenses on their works, there would be less real articles here, and more "How print numbers in ASP ,please hlep!!" type of articles. I think Chris's "fair license clause" should be a bit more precise.
Anyway, you do not have to worry about being caught "stealing code", unless you've actually done so! In any civilized society, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, not the defendent. If you haven't violated any license agreements, you have nothing to worry about.
--
Simulcast on Crazy People's Fillings
|
|
|
|
|
I like the idea of sharing ideas on Code Project however I get grumpy when I find CP submissions copied and pasted into project without referencing who wrote it. When I was consulting I would find this from time to time and it is just not right. Someone finds the code they need on CP and pastes/references into their project and remove the authors name so it looks like their code. If someone goes to the trouble of building the code they should get the credit.
|
|
|
|
|
At the very least, as well as a thank you in the docs.
|
|
|
|
|
KevinMac wrote: Someone finds the code they need on CP and pastes/references into their project and remove the authors name so it looks like their code.
Of course, you can go too far the other way as well - i've found source files nearly ten years old, code written by someone at Microsoft in response to a support call (who knows where or when). None of it actually in use anymore, and most of it long ago modified beyond recognition, as the bug in Windows 3.1 it originally worked around became less important... But all of the comments were still intact.
At some point, you just remove comments to avoid confusion.
I'll leave copyright notices intact 'till i've changed most of the signatures, re-factored larger methods, made the whole mess Unicode-friendly, and changed variable names to match local conventions. At that point, it's my code - complaints and bug reports should go to me, and while i'll leave a note at the top of the file crediting the original author for inspiration or whatever, i'm not gonna send future maintainers out to a CP article when little or none of the code they'll be looking at will match what they'll find.
|
|
|
|
|
John Cardinal wrote: I see no problem with applications attached to an article being licensed in any form and of course the article's author should retain their copyright and attribution etc, but I see a major problem for CodeProject's future if it allows users to license the article content itself and small samples of code.
Putting code in the public domain is pretty much just begging a crappy code-only site to come along and rip it off. If an author wants to do that, fine, but i'd hate to see the site mandate it. LGPL, BSD, and the Mozilla license all make it fairly easy to evaluate, learn from, and use code - i don't mind seeing any of them on the work attached to an article.
I cringe though, when i see "non-commercial use only". How worthless is that? Most of the software i write is written either for my own use (as part of my job), or for others within the same company. Is that commercial? What if i give CDs away as a way to encourage the use of other (commercial) products? What if the code finds its way into a larger library, that then is used by software from another group - am i responsible for keeping track of this damn thing until it dies? Do i get lawyers involved?
And don't even get me started about some of the brain-damage coming out of Microsoft, where there are specific restrictions on what sort of software you can write after seeing the code. Yeesh.
I don't want to think about any of this. Either the code solves my problem, or it doesn't. If you can't use an existing, relatively well-understood license, you probably don't really want to share your code anyway - so don't waste my time.
And that goes double for the assholes posting these articles with full intention of tracking down violators and "punishing" them. What a complete waste of time and effort, not to mention pissing away the good will towards contributors most of us here still hold. Look, buddy - your code ain't that great. If someone stole it, take it as a complement, or feel sorry for him - your choice. But leave it at that, or don't share it at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Shog9 wrote: Putting code in the public domain is pretty much just begging a crappy code-only site to come along and rip it off. If an author wants to do that, fine, but i'd hate to see the site mandate it.
I agree, I used the wrong terminology, what I mean is that copyright is a given and a good thing, that a complete application attached to an article should certainly be licenseable any way the author sees fit, but I don't for a second think it's ok to place a license of any kind on the contents of the article or small snippets of code in the article itself.
Judging by the votes my post got either there are not a lot of commercial developers here, people misunderstand my original post or I'm increasingly hanging out at the wrong site and judging by the silence from the powers that be over this issue I'm increasingly leaning towards the feeling I shouldn't be hanging out here any more.
|
|
|
|
|
John Cardinal wrote: Judging by the votes my post got
...you should have had me write it for you. 
Actually, I suspect you were voted down because of the PD confusion. It probably didn't help that the article you linked to (IconLib) seems to have some confusion as to its license (AFAIK, the author states BSD-style, but links to a CC license, which isn't quite the same thing and is hard to understand when applied to code). I don't think (from reading the article) that he's trying to be troublesome with it, but such are the pitfalls of licensing. And, for this site to be useful while preserving authors' copyrights, some sort of licensing is absolutely necessary!
I don't think for a moment that the majority here are in favor of onerous licenses. As far as commercial development goes, the GPL becomes troublesome for "software as a product" development (which i believe is what you mean when you use "commercial"). And explicit non-commercial licenses are pretty much a PitA all around (but i've seen these most often from commercial developers looking to use an article as advertising for their product). Because of this, i really like your idea for a tag+filtration system: combined with a limited list of licensing options for those posting code, it could make this mess a whole lot more manageable.
|
|
|
|
|
John Cardinal wrote: any article we submit here is public domain.
I see from some of the replies that you've had to clarify this point. I guess when used properly Public Domain should be capitalized. At any rate, the basic statement is still valid:
"any article we submit here is available to the public"
and the public is both great and unwashed.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
