Well that was uncalled for
idbruce
Posts: 6,197
To Whoever Stopped That Thread
It just started getting good. There were finally good questions being asked without moronic posts.
Bruce
It just started getting good. There were finally good questions being asked without moronic posts.
Bruce
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
It's not clear why that thread would get the brakes put on, there has been much worse head banging going on here and it's normally resolved in a genial way in the end.
Well OK here was my post anyway:
Batang,
Well, perhaps that would keep the laws and lawyers off your back and alleviate that problem.
But consider, anyone, person or organization, that wanted an operating system and applications on their computers that they could, trust, read, modify, build upon, distribute freely, etc etc would always have to start from nothing and build all their own code from the ground up.
Clearly that is not a practical way to proceed. So thankfully we have open source licences so that everyone can learn from and build upon the works of others.
How would it be if every mathematician had to discover everything about mathematics from 1, 2, 3... upwards for himself?
And here was my next:
There is another possible scenario. Lets say someone gained access to another persons proprietary code and simply slapped an MIT license to it, and uploaded it. However, the original author never had any intention of putting his source code within the public domain.
Could you be liable for damages?
Again, the author could initiate proceedings and it would be up to a judge or jury to determine your fate.
Bruce
In the real world of real things one can get into hot water for buying/obtaining goods that turn out to be stolen. In that way it's good to have traceability back to wherever the goods came from to divert legal attack. Receipts for example.
In that light, your asking permission from the authors (or distributors) to use code is quite reasonable. On the other hand there is a question of scale, one does not keep receipts for every two dollar item one buys.
My question from the last Thread. Bruce:
Thanks for your answer before the brakes got put on. I guess I should try and contact the Author(s). Or I kinda like living dangerously.
-Ron
Copyright infringement proceedings definitely cost more than $2.00. This would be especially true if you are found to be at fault. I am sure that damages could be quite substantial, depending on the circumstances. My advice is to protect your own rear. If there is no MIT license, then contact the author and ask him to update his source to include the license before using it. If you are doing something off the wall, like I was seeking in the previous thread, get it writing either from a company representative, the owner, or the author.
Bruce
Yes indeed, but that can be true of any little thing you do in life. One just can't make any progress if one checks the authenticity of every little thing.
For example, have you checked that all the code you may have created or acquired in the past is free of any patent restrictions?
Oh I agree with you.... Like I also said, there has to be trust. No, I haven't, but it is a risk.
Bruce
I've got to agree. Someone seems to have been just a bit heavy-handed with their authority.
BTW, Bruce, over time I've come to admire Heater and Leon for their thick hides. Some of us would do well to take a page from them.
I am writing a PM to Ken Gracey at this very moment pertaining to this.
I don't mind good advice, and of course I do need help from time to time(quite often in fact).
THIS FOLLOWING IS NOT DIRECTED AT YOU OR ANYONE IN PARTICULAR
My stance is, if you don't like me or what I have to say, then don't visit my threads. If you don't like me, I don't want your advice, nor do I want to be antagonized or treated like an idiot by you, nor do I care what you have to say. Just go away.
Simple and true.
Bruce
1) I do think things got a bit out of hand, but your question did seem to have a pretty obvious answer. Maybe it was not phrased as well as it could have been or people didn't read it "correctly."
2) If you wanted a real legal answer, you probably should have contacted Parallax directly and not just posted in the forum.
3) The only thing I consider a complaint on my end... The thread title "Dear Mr. Parallax Inc - Letter #2" is not the most useful title to use. The thread had the potential of being a valuable resource for everyone to refer back to. But, with this title it will be much harder to find later.
4) I thought that the response from Parallax (Ken Gracey) was very useful as a clarification of how Parallax wants things to work.
I'm not sure I deserve such admiration. For sure I have stepped over the line with some off hand comments here occasionally, thankfully these transgressions have been forgiven and forgotten after a little humility on my part. As for "thick skin" I usually don't get perturbed by what anyone says, only those I respect can really shake me up by what they say, usually because they are so awfully right:)
The resulting posts were exactly what I expected.
- I expected people with no knowledge of copyright law to provide their two cents.
- I anticipated a positive answer from Parallax.
- I also expected it to result in an interesting conversation.
However, I did not expect the thread to come to an abrupt halt.Bruce
But, Bruce, I also think you need to ask yourself why you seem to have such issues with the forum and its contributors when others do not. As it is with debugging a program, dispassionate self-examination can often be beneficial...
-Phil
As mentioned several times before, I respect you and your golden nuggets of wisdom. Occassionally you make me think
I personally don't mind heated debates. In fact, I think that it oftens brings out some of the most intelligent conversations. Let me ask you this. Besides the permission granted by Ken Gracey, do you think anyone else provided valid copyright information?
I am not referring to the questions, because there were some very good questions. I am just talking about people adding their two cents, when they have no clue what they are talking about. As I mentioned in that post, Title 17, is the ultimate decision maker, irregardless of the MIT license. Ken Gracey put all my concerns to rest, because of his authority as a representative of Parallax, Inc. I am certain there is a specific section within Title 17 that would govern the combining bodies of work (my InterComm object and FullDuplexSerial), hence the reason for my post. In fact, only a duly authorized agent could have given me the information that I was seeking, which was specific permission, because I do not ultimately trust the MIT license.
Has the MIT license ever been challenged in open court? Who won?
These are all valid issues pertaining to the MIT license, copyrighted material, and combined bodies of work.
That being said, we all have our issues. There is noone in this forum that has the perfect personality. People that I don't care for, I try to avoid. However, some of them just keep knocking on my door, and I would prefer they just go away.
Bruce
I'm not going to get into the specifics of the other thread for fear of recreating it. I will only say that this is a technical forum and probably not the best place from which to expect informed legal advice regarding U.S. Code, Title 17, intricacies -- if that's what you think you need. For my own purposes, I'm content to follow the suggestion I made there regarding attribution, without losing sleep or looking over my shoulder.
One thing I try to keep in mind on the forum is that, once I start a thread, I no longer own it. Whatever tangents or uninformed opinion find their way into it are just part of the game, over which I have no legitimate control. Of course, good manners dictate that threads not be hijacked too severely, but sometimes it's inevitable in the open discourse that's part of any discussion here.
-Phil
I agree with everything you said here 100%. with one stipulation
I agree after Ken made his appearance
Bruce
One note I want it understood that posting this link that I am taking side or trying to start any thing in any way info only
http://creativecommons.org/about/downloads/
I tire of this debate and suggest switching to this one instead:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless
(in jest)
While lawyers are mucking about in legalieze, the movers/shakers/inventors/path-pavers have already made your product/design obsolete.
Now that was interesting! I stand corrected.
Bruce
The Department of Homeland Security your neck, as if you are a terrorist. Up to 5 years in prison and a $250000 fine, forfeiture and restitution. For a first copyright infringement offence!
I think,
1) The copyright laws have become excessively draconian.
2) The punishments are way out of line with the seriousness of the offense in many cases.
3) Protecting the income of Disney and record companies etc for, lets face it historical works, effectively forever is insane.
4) Having to pay royalties to these IP gangsters is, in some cases, cause for reveloution. E.g. Here in Finland I have to pay a royalty, via increased taxi fares, because I might be hearing some music on the taxis radio, which I never asked for. Similarly having to pay a copyright tax on blank media is assuming I'm guilty of copyright infringement by default. Crazy.
Under the circumstances it's amazing anyone is brave enough to publish any software, free, open source or closed, proprietary.
That's before we consider the patent minefield which also seems to have gone insane in recent years.
I guess by virtue of posting that image here (copyright: The Department of Homeland Security may be) I had better take care not to visit the USA. Which is a shame as I'd really like to see Parallax HQ sometime:)
LOL Yes that does seem excessive, however, I think that is more along the lines of piracy as they call it. Now you have me curious.
Bruce
I believe 17 : 504 USC would be more in line with the topic of discussion than 17 : 506 USC, but there is a fine line and it appears to be commercial gain. I did not study it in depth, but here is a link to Chapter 5 of Title 17, it covers copyright infringement and remedies.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.pdf
Bruce
One other thing. Yes it is a fairly serious crime to use those emblems. The US government takes such postings very seriously. I would suggest you remove it, even if you are not a citizen of the USA.
Bruce
There is NO infringement, malicious or fraudulent activity being caused or inferred either accidentally or knowingly by the above posts. Your suggestion of a non frivolous action, taken out of context within the realm of it's application, shows lack of comprehension of the given subject. The posting of the image above; an image that is a warning which may or may not be legal, it's context is explaining what COULD happen if the application of the correct laws, within it's context and domain, are violated; is not violating the underlying law the image is proclaiming. If you are referring to copyright infringement by re-displaying the image, please note that credit was applied within the context of the post to the indicated owners, thus "knowingly or accidentally" paraphrase as contained within the laws of infringement are constrained.
So, in full legal knowledge of the facts, which I am, your statement above is worthless to anyone who has common sense of understanding of context, application and the the domain of each.
Anything else you derived from these statements is purely personal and in fact, opinion, thus irrelevant of the subject at hand: Copyright infringement; knowingly or accidentally committed. Please attempt to keep subject matter on topic within a thread.
And what are your credentials? I am almost 100% certain that you are WRONG!
I will provide a reference to the USC.
Bruce
This is just for starters
Bruce
Here my take on all of this when ever you post something on any Forum it is no longer yours only
so if you want to copyright your work before you post it do so that way you are cover and be done with it
Case in point I use to work for a company
I did Basic Stamp Project for which I post the working code demo that I wrote for this project But did not post the company name because I was ask not but They did let me post some photos of the equipment that this project was about some code was left out that I did not post Not every thing need to be posted for any given Project
Also when I post my own project on this forum I only post a working code demo I do not always post the revision that where made they are my own
I think that all that is need when posting a project of any kind is a working demo of a concept for example how to use a DS1302 Time Keep Chip
and maybe a MAX186 ADC chip together
And any way I thought that this forum was here to learn about Micro-Controller and the like not spending all of our time debating this topic not that this is not important Please do not take this wrong way
I hope that we DO NOT LOOSE ability to a have working code demo of a concept not being post on any forum of any kind this will be a VERY VERY bad day for all of US just because some one or everyone want copyright your work before you post it to me this would be very sad