|
I can still see it, and it is marked as closed. I would have expected it to be deleted as are most articles that get flagged as spam.
|
|
|
|
|
... without confirming my mail I can report members and earn points....
see here: SAOTD[^]
And it makes it possible this way, that my messages are not longer need to await moderation
modified 26-Jan-21 15:35pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Even more strange... your messages are chronologically inverted in this forum  
Message below:
Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 9:37pm
This Message I am answering:
Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 9:30pm
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can you please send me an email (sean@codeproject.com) and I'll get this sorted for you.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
|
And now account closed?
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Using Firefox 84.0.2, the "reactions" panel often disappears whilst I'm moving my mouse from the trigger to the panel. It's as if there's a path a couple of pixels wide connecting them, and if I deviate by a micron either way, the panel hides itself again.
It would be nice if you could keep the panel visible for longer - maybe using something like the jQuery hoverIntent plugin[^].
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
How is it now?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Initial impression is it seems better. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I've improved an abandoned codebase, licensed with the CPOL, creating a "derivative work". May I distribute my modifications under a different license (the MIT license)?
|
|
|
|
|
Not without permission from the original licence holder: you would be changing the terms of the licence:
Quote: BY EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS TO THE WORK PROVIDED HEREIN, YOU ACCEPT AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. THE AUTHOR GRANTS YOU THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HEREIN IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ACCEPT AND BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, YOU CANNOT MAKE ANY USE OF THE WORK.
And
Quote: Subject to the above terms and conditions, this License is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, the Author reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above.
You need the original author's permission.
CPOL: Code Project Open License[^]
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
So it works like the Ms-PL? I mean that it infects all derivative works distributed in source?
According to the license:
d) "Executable Files" refer to the executables, binary files, configuration and any required data files included in the Work.
e) "Publisher" means the provider of the website, magazine, CD-ROM, DVD or other medium from or by which the Work is obtained by You.
f) "Source Code" refers to the collection of source code and configuration files used to create the Executable Files.
h) "Work" refers to the collection of files distributed by the Publisher, including the Source Code, Executable Files, binaries, data files, documentation, whitepapers and the Articles.
(Emphasis mine)
And in section 5:
You may distribute the Executable Files and Source Code only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License with every copy of the Executable Files or Source Code You distribute and ensure that anyone receiving such Executable Files and Source Code agrees that the terms of this License apply to such Executable Files and/or Source Code. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder. You may not sublicense the Work. You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties. You may not distribute the Executable Files or Source Code with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License.
My modified source files CANNOT be used to create the same "Executable Files", therefore it should NOT be treated as "Source Code" in the license, am I right?
To make it clear: I am distributing a Derivative Work. It's like getting some Apache licensed code written in Java, translating it into C#, then releasing the translated version under the MIT license. I am NOT trying to steal from the original author because the project is abandoned.
modified 24-Jan-21 11:47am.
|
|
|
|
|
trungnt2910 wrote: It's like getting some Apache licensed code written in Java, translating it into C#, then releasing the translated version under the MIT license.
Then as I understand it you would be doing wrong.
https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0[^]
4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions:
You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and
You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and
You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and
If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed as modifying the License.
You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License.
I understand this as you would give MIT License to YOUR work, not the original APACHE licensed code.
In other words, the license of your derivative work CAN'T REPLACE the original license.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I do something like this
You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License.
I license my Derivative Work under the MIT license, while still keeping the copyright notice of the original author.
I AM NOT A THIEF, I DON'T RIP CODE WITHOUT CREDITING.
|
|
|
|
|
trungnt2910 wrote: I AM NOT A THIEF, I DON'T RIP CODE WITHOUT CREDITING.
Nobody said anything about it.
You asked something about a very complicated topic, and we are just trying to understand what you want, and give you an answer.
We are not lawyers to understand 100% the legal terms and we are not judges to condemnate you or your work.
You have just asked if you can change the license, and with what I have understood after reading the licenses and the few information about the modifications of your derivative work... I would say: No, you can't change the license from CPOL to MIT just because you want.
If you get the permission of the original author, that's another topic.
If you don't like it... wait for more answers or hire a lawyer specialized in copyright and licensing to get out of doubts.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
According to the CPOL license too:
3.Licence Grant: c. You may otherwise modify Your copy of this Work (excluding the Articles) in any way to create a Derivative Work, provided that You insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating how, when and where You changed that file.
But it says nothing on changing the licensing model.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Does this mean that there are no restrictions on the new license? That my only obligation is to " insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating how, when and where You changed that file"?
|
|
|
|
|
I would understand it just in the opposite way, like above in the apache.
You can only change the add a new license TO YOUR part.
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.
modified 24-Jan-21 13:38pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, it is just what I want.
|
|
|
|
|
See the answer of Chris Maunder below.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
trungnt2910 wrote: So it works like the Ms-PL? I mean that it infects all derivative works distributed in source?
No. The license applies to the authors work. You distribute the author's work, the license stays with that work. It's licensed. New work doesn't take on the CPOL (unlike viral licenses like GPL)
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your response.
Does this mean that only I have to comply with the terms of the license? Or are any third parties that use my "Derivative Work" also bound to the Author's CPOL?
modified 25-Jan-21 9:47am.
|
|
|
|
|
The code from the original author is under the CPOL. Your additions are under whatever license you choose.
The point here is you can't take a license away from a work.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Was reading some responses in the lounge and realized we're missing the Facepalm.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
