Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Dear Mr. Parallax Inc - Letter #2 — Parallax Forums

Dear Mr. Parallax Inc - Letter #2

idbruceidbruce Posts: 6,197
edited 2011-02-01 11:23 in Propeller 1
Dear Mr. Parallax Inc

With the assistance of numerous people, but most specifically kuroneko, I have been working on creating a new object for Prop To Prop communication.

This new object is intended to run in an individual cog, which then links to FullDuplexSerial, which also runs in it's own individual cog.

I would like to integrate the new object with FullDuplexSerial and therefore eliminate the use of one cog. Furthermore, I would like to alter the naming of variables more suitable to my style of programming. The initial substance of FullDuplexSerial would remain unaltered, it would just look a little different, however, it would have the additional abilities afforded by the object below.

I am uncertain how this integration would affect the MIT license of both objects. Therefore, I am asking:
  1. May I have your permission to hijack and alter the complete source code of FullDuplexSerial?
  2. How would I handle the MIT license and Copyright notice?
Please note that the attached object is a work in progress. Future enhancements will include a detachable parser thus making it more adaptable to sending user defined strings.

Bruce Drummond
zip
zip
InterCommDemo.zip
12K
«1

Comments

  • Mike GreenMike Green Posts: 23,101
    edited 2011-02-01 07:31
    Please read the MIT License. One of the "whole point"s of it is that you don't need further permission to use the code as you see fit. You are specifically given permission to modify and use as you see fit anything licensed under the MIT license. The only thing you can't do is to claim the pieces under the MIT License as your own (you have to include a copy of the license and copyright notice. You could say "Portions copyright"). I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on this license: here.
  • idbruceidbruce Posts: 6,197
    edited 2011-02-01 07:50
    Mike

    I realize that question #1 is pretty much a straight forward answer.

    The main question is #2.

    By integrating them and altering the code, question #2 becomes a more delicate issue.

    I have been working with and studying proprietary material for over 25 years. Not that it would ever end up in the courts, but if it did, the judge would take a long hard look at the substance, the license, and the copyright notice. If it was incorrect, I could be liable. By asking for permission, I reduce liablity concerns, and if granted permission, I will know how Parallax wants the Copyright notice posted with such an integration. Plagerism can be a copyright violation, even with a MIT license. It would all depend on the presentation.

    Bruce
  • Oldbitcollector (Jeff)Oldbitcollector (Jeff) Posts: 8,091
    edited 2011-02-01 07:55
    @Bruce,

    I can understand your concerns with liability, but in terms of dealing with "Mr Parallax" I believe you will find "him" easily willing to work with your needs without concern. His intent is the forward move of the Propeller. It sounds like you are on the same track. I'd move forward without worry. :)

    OBC
  • idbruceidbruce Posts: 6,197
    edited 2011-02-01 08:00
    Oldbitcollector

    Yes I agree that "Mr.Parallax is easy going, and I probably shouldn't worry about it. But I have also learned that approaching things with a carefree attitude can come back and bite you.

    I don't think it will be a major issue. I am just checking with them, since they own the copyright.

    Bruce
  • Ken GraceyKen Gracey Posts: 7,401
    edited 2011-02-01 08:03
    Good morning Bruce,

    You are free to modify the code as you wish; the MIT license provides very clear freedom to modify and distribute the code as long as you include a copy of the license itself. There's a fair amount of discussion in the past about OBEX licensing on the forum. OBEX is about sharing and using code from others. And maybe even more important are our underlying values in this business - you needn't be concerned about any kind of legal or financial concern towards Parallax as a result of using our material, whether it's a PCB file, source code, schematic, or a whole product. It's out there so you can use it. If we had any lawyers on our staff this could be a different kind of place from a customer's perspective, but that's not going to happen. No matter what, the license gives you freedom.

    I look forward to seeing the interProp.obj project. Your internal dilemma towards using what's "out of the box" vs. full customization is a common discussion inside Parallax. Our AppNotes will have a really quick high-level example plus ideas/solutions for one that saves code space and optimizes the object for a particular use. There's a need for both approaches.

    BTW, have still not replied to your thread about Prop Tool enhancements in entirety, but we'll get there. Our internal list of improvements isn't so "portable" - it's part of a database with links to more detail so it's difficult to share but I'll find a way with a few screen shots or copy/paste efforts.

    Have a great day.

    Ken Gracey
  • Dave HeinDave Hein Posts: 6,347
    edited 2011-02-01 08:14
    Bruce,

    The MIT license seems clear that you can use the source anyway you want, as long as you include the orignal copyright notice and the MIT license notice. Most people put the copyright notice at the beginning and the MIT license at the end. It might be easier if we adopt a practive of putting them together. It's not clear how much of the text at the beginning is part of the copyright noitce. Clearly, the author's name and the line that says "Copyright" with the year are part of the notice. However, people usually include a date, version number, list of contributors, title, etc. It's not clear how much of that needs to be retained. The safest thing would be to keep all of the comments that are at the beginning with the copyright notice.

    Dave
  • idbruceidbruce Posts: 6,197
    edited 2011-02-01 08:20
    Dave

    Not necessarilly for you, but for others, a copyright notice only needs : Copyright (C) YEAR. Author(s)

    The rest is just additional information.

    Bruce
  • ericballericball Posts: 774
    edited 2011-02-01 08:22
    The MIT license is pretty explicit. You are free to "use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software". The only condition is "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."

    So just include the MIT license in your code which is based on FullDuplexSerial and include the Copyright notice from FullDuplexSerial.
  • idbruceidbruce Posts: 6,197
    edited 2011-02-01 08:23
    Ken

    Thank you very much for your reply. I did not think it would be a major issue, just checking to make sure.

    As far as the Prop Tool post goes, I have not had much time for that either, however, it is still part of the agenda. My first concern is getting into reliable production.

    Bruce
  • idbruceidbruce Posts: 6,197
    edited 2011-02-01 08:31
    Okay Guys

    I am not an idiot. Like I said, I have worked with and studied proprietary material for over 25 years. I have one patent, one patent pending, I have numerous items with a simple copyright notice, and I have one item that filed with the Copyright Office and failed to get a copyright, and I have another that I filed with the Copyright Office and was granted a copyright. I am much further along in this issue than you think.

    Bruce
  • LeonLeon Posts: 7,620
    edited 2011-02-01 08:38
    What prompted that outburst?
  • idbruceidbruce Posts: 6,197
    edited 2011-02-01 08:49
    Leon

    By everyone simply saying read the MIT license. Everything is not always black and white. I am VERY knowledgeable about proprietary materials and I have already read the MIT license numerous times. "If there are any Copyright attorneys in the bunch, please stand up". Otherwise, the question was directed to Mr.Parallax. :) If I need help, I ask for it. If someone needs help, I offer.

    However in this instance, I specifically asked for guidance from Mr.Parallax.

    Bruce
  • Mike GreenMike Green Posts: 23,101
    edited 2011-02-01 08:59
    This is a public forum. You get public comments. That's the nature of a public forum. Don't complain about the responses you got, they were all well intentioned. You did in fact get a reply from one of the principals of Parallax, Ken Gracey. If you want a private conversation, send e-mail or a private message.
  • idbruceidbruce Posts: 6,197
    edited 2011-02-01 09:07
    Mike

    Yes, it is a public forum. How can I possibly disagree? I don't know why, but I just get annoyed when people assume that I am ignorant. :) I am beginning to think that some here enjoy annoying me :)

    Bruce
  • LeonLeon Posts: 7,620
    edited 2011-02-01 09:27
    It's your attitude, you ask silly questions and then complain when people assume that you are ignorant. Then you claim to know it all. That sort of behaviour is bound to annoy people.
  • idbruceidbruce Posts: 6,197
    edited 2011-02-01 09:28
    Leon

    What silly question are you referring to?

    Bruce
  • LeonLeon Posts: 7,620
    edited 2011-02-01 09:30
    The one on this thread, for instance. The license conditions are quite clear.
  • idbruceidbruce Posts: 6,197
    edited 2011-02-01 09:33
    Okay Leon

    If it is so silly, give me a legal and proper copyright notice example for combining my object with FullDuplexSerial.

    Bruce
  • LeonLeon Posts: 7,620
    edited 2011-02-01 09:41
    With your vast experience of such matters, I'm sure that you can come up with something for yourself, if you don't agree with what you've been told here.
  • idbruceidbruce Posts: 6,197
    edited 2011-02-01 09:49
    Leon

    Nobody has presented that information yet, that is why I was asking you for your legal guidance.

    Bruce
  • idbruceidbruce Posts: 6,197
    edited 2011-02-01 09:52
    In case anyone cares to attempt such an answer, please be able to back it up with a reference to Title 17 of the United States Code.

    Bruce
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2011-02-01 09:53
    I can't imagine why this has to be so difficult. Just include the original copyright notice, as required by the lIcense, along with, "Additions and modifications (c) Copyright 2011 Bruce Drummond." You can also note in the code comments which portions you've added/changed.

    -Phil
  • idbruceidbruce Posts: 6,197
    edited 2011-02-01 09:55
    Phil

    Please read my previous post.

    Bruce
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2011-02-01 10:01
    Oh, for heavens sakes, Bruce! Get over yourself! You're making this way harder than it needs to be. If you're not happy with the answers you get here, pay the big bucks to hire an attorney. Even if one us us could cite a Title 17 Code section, you wouldn't be satisfied with it.

    -Phil
  • LeonLeon Posts: 7,620
    edited 2011-02-01 10:03
    idbruce wrote: »
    In case anyone cares to attempt such an answer, please be able to back it up with a reference to Title 17 of the United States Code.

    Bruce

    That only applies to the USA, doesn't it? It's irrelevant to those of us in other countries.

    Apparently, there is no such thing as "The MIT License":

    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses

    Expat License

    This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. It is sometimes ambiguously referred to as the MIT License.

    http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt

    Here is the relevant page on the Parallax web site:

    http://obex.parallax.com/license/
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    edited 2011-02-01 10:04
    idbruce,

    Sometimes one needs a thick skin on the internet. After all people don't know as much about you as you do so they may jump to all sorts of conclusions regarding the intent of your comments and questions.

    Anyway. My understanding is that under the Berne Convention it is not necessary to put any copyright notice on your works or register them in anyway in order to gain copyright. So in all countries who are signed up to the convention all this (c) bla bla is redundant. That is most of the world covered.

    LIke this from wikipedia:
    In all countries that are members of the Berne Convention, copyright is automatic and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape, or a computer file), the copyright holder is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights.

    Now you are going to mix in some pre-existing work to your own that is distributed under the M.I.T. licence. The licence is in the file, it's clear enough. If you agree with the terms then just go ahead.

    That does rather imply that your contribution to the combined work inherits similar licencing terms.
  • idbruceidbruce Posts: 6,197
    edited 2011-02-01 10:05
    Phil

    Leon said my question was silly. I think it was a very valid question. Ken said no problem and that is good enough for me. But I think Leon's response was silly, especially since he cannot provide a valid answer.

    Bruce
  • idbruceidbruce Posts: 6,197
    edited 2011-02-01 10:10
    Heater

    I did not read your entire post, but you are in fact quite correct. You do not need a copyright notice for copyright protection, but it does allow for a larger reward in damages should a copyright infringement occur. Of course, this is true for the USA. As Leon pointed out, he is in a different country. Our copyright notice probably don't mean much over there.

    Bruce
  • LeonLeon Posts: 7,620
    edited 2011-02-01 10:14
    Heater. wrote: »
    idbruce,

    Anyway. My understanding is that under the Berne Convention it is not necessary to put any copyright notice on your works or register them in anyway in order to gain copyright. So in all countries who are signed up to the convention all this (c) bla bla is redundant. That is most of the world covered.

    That's the case here in the UK, anything written is copyright automatically. Nothing needs to be added to the text.
  • idbruceidbruce Posts: 6,197
    edited 2011-02-01 10:17
    Leon

    That is also true for the USA, but as I pointed out:
    You do not need a copyright notice for copyright protection, but it does allow for a larger reward in damages should a copyright infringement occur.

    And then additional damages can also be awarded if you actually file the pertinent information with the Copyright Office.

    Bruce
This discussion has been closed.