In my past programming with C++, I have encountered many author drafted licenses, which were as plain and simple as I stated, being no modifications. In many instances, the source code worked perfectly as wrapped, so it was a perfect solution for me, since I did not want to reinvent, I just wanted source code to perform a particular task. On the other hand, I have tried code with a similar license, but the code was deficient and needed more work, in which case, I dropped it like a hot potato (no pun intended potatohead ), and found a better alternative.
Let's say he missed something, and it falls short of what you need, now that you have seen the source thus agreeing to his license terms, you can never do your own version.
That's not true. I don't know why everyone was afraid to look at his source code, I am sure duplication of his code would be obvious. It never hurts to get incentive, just don't copy the work. In the case of a patent, it becomes a whole different ball game, but for copyrights, just don't copy or flagrantly plagerize. However, I must admit, having been there before, it is always tempting to look at another body of work if you hit a stumbling block.
I used to not want to give money to street-corner bums because I figured they would just go buy alcohol with it. Then, one day in a moment of pure charitable clarity, I realized that if I give something, I really shouldn't expect to receive anything in return because it was a gift. That is, once I give it away, it is no longer mine. Well, I started giving every chance I had, and figured I gave away a few hundred dollars a year at least for a while. Then one day I gave a $10 bill to a woman at a street corner near my neighborhood, and to my shock, she tried to kiss me! Ugh! She ran to the liquor store after I thwarted her advance.
If this hypothetical code worked as is, then I would just link to it, and not worry about changing it. If it has some issue that required changes I would have to contact the copyright holder to see if he would change it.
If this affected the whole community, and the copyright holder was not willing to make changes we could take another approach. The people that viewed the code could write up a specification on how it works, and another group of people who have not seen the source would write code based on the specification. This version of code would not be subject to the restricted license imposed by the original author. This is how PC clone makers created a BIOS for their machine without violating IBM's copywrite on their BIOS.
Okay, way off topic, but in line with jazzed's previous story. When I lived in Dallas Texas many moons ago, I always went to the same pool hall, which was right next door to an adult entertainment place. Well anyway, I came out of the pool hall one night and as I was walking passed the adult entertainment store, there was a couple sitting on the hood of a car. The male companion offered me the services of the female companion as a gift, talk about Ugh! She was Ugh!ly. I said "No Thank You" and politely went on my merry way. So yes, I agree that some gifts are not worth having
"Then, one day in a moment of pure charitable clarity, I realized that if I give something, I really shouldn't expect to receive anything in return because it was a gift."
I had a similar moment of clarity. Good post.
From then on, I've given money knowing that most of the time it's gonna go to more booze, but once in a while it doesn't. My wife has many years working in drug and alcohol treatment and outreach. Folks, that's brutal work. The worst, because it gets right at your soul. Anyway, they learned about a few percent each year really do hit the bottom and what happens then is they realize they have absolutely nothing to lose, and so they turn the corner and begin to build again. All those gifts given along the way get them there, and it's ugly, but for some people who get bit by those diseases, the way out is actually getting there and getting there reasonably means eventually getting out, up and better.
Strange as it may seem, that gift then with no conditions actually does help in a basic, human non judgmental way and it's noble because of that. Very hard realizations for me personally.
Sometimes you can offer a meal and conversation. Often they won't take it for fear or it being mismatched to their need at the time, but when they do it's powerful and they tell you stuff and you listen and wish them well.
I used to not want to give money to street-corner bums...
An English gentleman is walking in the street one day and, per chance, passes a Scottish tramp walking the other way.
"Excuse me kind sir, can you spare fifty pence for a cup of tea?" Says the tramp.
The gentleman, being of good heart, says "Certainly my good man." and offers the tramp fifty pence.
Adding "Be sure you spend it on tea and not alcohol".
At that the tramp gets very angry and shouts "Ye pumpin' Sassenach mon, dae nae tell me whit tae dae wi' mah dosh!"
Edit: My humblest apologies to any Scottish readers. But this joke sums up the reaction to receiving a "gift" of open source code and then being told what you can and cannot do with it. I guess the same reaction is felt when people get a look at at GPL'ed code.
After much reading of this thread, and some others very much like it on this and other forums over a period of more than a decade I have come to a conclusion:
I'm going to join the Pirate Bay Party.
The sooner we forget all this copyright and patent nonsense the better.
Ignoring such things worked very well for the fetal United States of America a long time ago and is working very well for the growing Chinese and Asian economies now.
My bet is that it will work out for me also:)
Living here in the US, I find that simply amazing, BTW
It is.
But just consider it a uprising against the Hollywood Empire and the Micky Mouse laws. (Extending copyright terms every time Micky is about to enter the public domain, come on really).
Pretty much the way the early USA did not recognize copyrights of anything British.
Did you know, for example that if you ride in a taxi in Finland part of your fare goes towards music royalties that the taxi driver has to pay because he might be playing music on the radio in his cab?
Please tell me how that is anything other than highway robbery (almost literally) enforced by the state under pressure from the USA media moguls ?
Did you know we have to pay a levy on blank CD's and other recordable media just in case we are putting copyrighted music on it?
I never rent movies, but a few times a year I may buy a movie - sometimes an old movie made long before I was born. Generally this is easily done. Other times I find that the DVD is not being produced (or never has been produced) and the price of the few copies available have increased to astounding levels. Mind you, the actors are dead, the director is dead, the studio may not even exist anymore, yet I have to pay $60 - $100 to own a copy. Blank that!
My point is that copyright enforcement can be absurd, and I'm nothing if not practical. Heck, I might even take a gander at P2BCEE if I ever find any need or desire to operate a P2 at 20% of its native throughput.
Oh boy, do I hear that... Could go on for days. Yeah, I would sign up for sure. Copyright is a good thing, necessary thing, but the balance struck is all broken right now. It's unfortunate, and BTW a reason why the Creative Commons licenses exist!
Yes, I am aware of the blanket media tax, but the CAB tax is new to me!
And if they are playing music produced by their fellow Finns? Annoying, I'm sure.
Last I heard was a proposal to put a levy on any cloud storage you might have, after all no on uses CD's any more.
You will hear all kinds of music on Finnish radio stations. It matters not where it comes from because there is of course a Finnish version of the MPAA collecting the money and lobbying for more all the time. This all comes about because Europe has been so eager to follow the Micky Mouse philosophy.
Now, I would be less angry about all of this if there was even some glimmer of accountability in it all. Who knows where all the levy and royalty money goes?
Then, when it comes down to armed police in helicopters raiding the home of Kim Dotcom in New Zealand you must think this has all gone too far.
Did you know, for example that if you ride in a taxi in Finland part of your fare goes towards music royalties that the taxi driver has to pay because he might be playing music on the radio in his cab?
I love it! "Radio Taxi" or "Radio Cab" used to be a selling point for faster service and dispatch. Now, it seems a "Radioless Cab" would be a winner in Finland except I bet if you go to the licensing body asking to charge a lesser rate and not have to pay the music royalty because NONE of you cabs had radios in them, you would be denied your license and laughed out of the building!
Anyone here ever read the truth machine?
It's entirely based on a guy who invented a machine that could always 100 percent of the time tell if anyone was lying or not. When he was working on it, one of his friends showed him code that solved one of his problems he was having with the truth machine software. Later, he found out this code had been written by someone else he did not get along with, and since it was copyrighted code, (and not released) he absolutely could not use the code.
*spoiler alert*
As it turns out, he eventually (years later if I recall correctly) put a superficial rewrite on the code he'd read before (he had an idetic memory) and incorporated it into his machine. The guy who showed him the original code then tried to blackmail him. A scuffle ensued, he killed the guy, then incorporated code into the truth machine that would allow him to bypass the truth check if he recited poetry during the scanning process (well, a particular poem, but still).
Eventually, his patent ran out, and he was tested with another machine, where upon he was convicted of murder and sentenced to being made average intelligence instead of his genius iq he currently had. It was pointed out during the trial that if the guy had told him about the code first, he could have negotiated for a license to use it, but because he wasn't given that option, he wound up breaking the law.
It really was an interesting read. The discussion over seeing or not code in the forums and their licenses made me remember it. <shrug>
Let's say he missed something, and it falls short of what you need, now that you have seen the source thus agreeing to his license terms, you can never do your own version.
If such as solution existed, and cannot be modifed per license, then it should be released as an executable, so no source need be divulged.
In this case if it doesn't end up suiting the needs of the project, you are still free to roll your own.
That's not true. I don't know why everyone was afraid to look at his source code, I am sure duplication of his code would be obvious. It never hurts to get incentive, just don't copy the work. In the case of a patent, it becomes a whole different ball game, but for copyrights, just don't copy or flagrantly plagerize. However, I must admit, having been there before, it is always tempting to look at another body of work if you hit a stumbling block.
@idbruce
C.W. Has a point in this case. Having seen the code and the overall approach to solving a problem makes it more difficult to come up with a truly independent solution. You will be influenced by the code you have seen even though you may try to avoid it. I would much rather know in advance what type of license is used so I can avoid looking at code that has a restrictive license.
I applaud Parallax for making it clear that anything posted in these forums or the OBEX in future will be using the MIT license.
You will be influenced by the code you have seen even though you may try to avoid it.
Why would that be a problem?
We are talking copyright law here not patents. If you get an idea from reading some code and then write your own code using that idea no harm done. Actual ideas are subject to patent law, if applicable, not copyright law.
If what you are saying was a problem then authors would never be able to read books. How crazy would that be?
Heater, if you saw the original code it would be very hard to prove that you didn't copy the original. However, if you write the code based on a description without seeing the original code, then it's not possible to have violated the copywrite. This is how the "clean-room" process works that was used to implement the IBM PC BIOS in PC clones.
Yep, true. I know the Compaq BIOS story. Given that they were probably using IBM PC's on which to write and build their new BIOS and that IBM PC's came with the source of the BIOS in the back of the manual, I always thought that was all just smoke and mirrors. All the engineers probably had the BIOS source sitting on their desk!
So, anyway, it is as crazy as I suggested. Computers programmers are authors that are not allowed to read the works of their fellow authors. Bizarre.
All the engineers probably had the BIOS source sitting on their desk!
LOL I would imagine that is a fair assumption, but they all want to be able to claim ignorance.
Additionally, by looking at someone elses source, improvements can be made, and new ideas can develop, which the original author obviously never thought of.
In the past, many times I have examined other peoples source code, just to get the overall scheme of things, and then start building from scratch, with the functions and methods available. Of course, ignorance could be a good line of defense, but I think, in the case of infringement, the two bodies of work would be examined for similarities, and a determination would most likely be based upon similarities, and not based upon the fact that someone claims they never seen a specific body of work.
I just assume that as I had the IBM manuals and hence BIOS on my desk around that time they probably did to.
But I also thing that the "clean room" BIOS rewrite had another purpose. As far as I know Compaq did not publish the source to their BIOS as IBM did (anyone know for sure?). Why would they? It would make it easier for other cloners. Given that only the binary was released, in the EPROMs, then they had to have a way to say that the code was clean, hence the "clean room" charade.
I have decided to use MIDI to write music and I'm coping everyone's posted code. Muuuhhaahhaaha... I shall be the richest Propeller musician that has ever lived.
Comments
In my past programming with C++, I have encountered many author drafted licenses, which were as plain and simple as I stated, being no modifications. In many instances, the source code worked perfectly as wrapped, so it was a perfect solution for me, since I did not want to reinvent, I just wanted source code to perform a particular task. On the other hand, I have tried code with a similar license, but the code was deficient and needed more work, in which case, I dropped it like a hot potato (no pun intended potatohead
That's not true. I don't know why everyone was afraid to look at his source code, I am sure duplication of his code would be obvious. It never hurts to get incentive, just don't copy the work. In the case of a patent, it becomes a whole different ball game, but for copyrights, just don't copy or flagrantly plagerize. However, I must admit, having been there before, it is always tempting to look at another body of work if you hit a stumbling block.
I used to not want to give money to street-corner bums because I figured they would just go buy alcohol with it. Then, one day in a moment of pure charitable clarity, I realized that if I give something, I really shouldn't expect to receive anything in return because it was a gift. That is, once I give it away, it is no longer mine. Well, I started giving every chance I had, and figured I gave away a few hundred dollars a year at least for a while. Then one day I gave a $10 bill to a woman at a street corner near my neighborhood, and to my shock, she tried to kiss me! Ugh! She ran to the liquor store after I thwarted her advance.
LOL
If this affected the whole community, and the copyright holder was not willing to make changes we could take another approach. The people that viewed the code could write up a specification on how it works, and another group of people who have not seen the source would write code based on the specification. This version of code would not be subject to the restricted license imposed by the original author. This is how PC clone makers created a BIOS for their machine without violating IBM's copywrite on their BIOS.
Heartbreaker! You drove her to drink!
I had a similar moment of clarity. Good post.
From then on, I've given money knowing that most of the time it's gonna go to more booze, but once in a while it doesn't. My wife has many years working in drug and alcohol treatment and outreach. Folks, that's brutal work. The worst, because it gets right at your soul. Anyway, they learned about a few percent each year really do hit the bottom and what happens then is they realize they have absolutely nothing to lose, and so they turn the corner and begin to build again. All those gifts given along the way get them there, and it's ugly, but for some people who get bit by those diseases, the way out is actually getting there and getting there reasonably means eventually getting out, up and better.
Strange as it may seem, that gift then with no conditions actually does help in a basic, human non judgmental way and it's noble because of that. Very hard realizations for me personally.
Sometimes you can offer a meal and conversation. Often they won't take it for fear or it being mismatched to their need at the time, but when they do it's powerful and they tell you stuff and you listen and wish them well.
"Excuse me kind sir, can you spare fifty pence for a cup of tea?" Says the tramp.
The gentleman, being of good heart, says "Certainly my good man." and offers the tramp fifty pence.
Adding "Be sure you spend it on tea and not alcohol".
At that the tramp gets very angry and shouts "Ye pumpin' Sassenach mon, dae nae tell me whit tae dae wi' mah dosh!"
Edit: My humblest apologies to any Scottish readers. But this joke sums up the reaction to receiving a "gift" of open source code and then being told what you can and cannot do with it. I guess the same reaction is felt when people get a look at at GPL'ed code.
She was just trying to provide a little recognition for your generosity
I'm going to join the Pirate Bay Party.
The sooner we forget all this copyright and patent nonsense the better.
Ignoring such things worked very well for the fetal United States of America a long time ago and is working very well for the growing Chinese and Asian economies now.
My bet is that it will work out for me also:)
But just consider it a uprising against the Hollywood Empire and the Micky Mouse laws. (Extending copyright terms every time Micky is about to enter the public domain, come on really).
Pretty much the way the early USA did not recognize copyrights of anything British.
Did you know, for example that if you ride in a taxi in Finland part of your fare goes towards music royalties that the taxi driver has to pay because he might be playing music on the radio in his cab?
Please tell me how that is anything other than highway robbery (almost literally) enforced by the state under pressure from the USA media moguls ?
Did you know we have to pay a levy on blank CD's and other recordable media just in case we are putting copyrighted music on it?
Enough is enough. Pirate Bay party here I come.
My point is that copyright enforcement can be absurd, and I'm nothing if not practical. Heck, I might even take a gander at P2BCEE if I ever find any need or desire to operate a P2 at 20% of its native throughput.
Yes, I am aware of the blanket media tax, but the CAB tax is new to me!
And if they are playing music produced by their fellow Finns? Annoying, I'm sure.
You will hear all kinds of music on Finnish radio stations. It matters not where it comes from because there is of course a Finnish version of the MPAA collecting the money and lobbying for more all the time. This all comes about because Europe has been so eager to follow the Micky Mouse philosophy.
Now, I would be less angry about all of this if there was even some glimmer of accountability in it all. Who knows where all the levy and royalty money goes?
Then, when it comes down to armed police in helicopters raiding the home of Kim Dotcom in New Zealand you must think this has all gone too far.
I love it! "Radio Taxi" or "Radio Cab" used to be a selling point for faster service and dispatch. Now, it seems a "Radioless Cab" would be a winner in Finland except I bet if you go to the licensing body asking to charge a lesser rate and not have to pay the music royalty because NONE of you cabs had radios in them, you would be denied your license and laughed out of the building!
How right you are. There is no way out.
Having MIDI makes music making easy for anyone.
It's entirely based on a guy who invented a machine that could always 100 percent of the time tell if anyone was lying or not. When he was working on it, one of his friends showed him code that solved one of his problems he was having with the truth machine software. Later, he found out this code had been written by someone else he did not get along with, and since it was copyrighted code, (and not released) he absolutely could not use the code.
*spoiler alert*
As it turns out, he eventually (years later if I recall correctly) put a superficial rewrite on the code he'd read before (he had an idetic memory) and incorporated it into his machine. The guy who showed him the original code then tried to blackmail him. A scuffle ensued, he killed the guy, then incorporated code into the truth machine that would allow him to bypass the truth check if he recited poetry during the scanning process (well, a particular poem, but still).
Eventually, his patent ran out, and he was tested with another machine, where upon he was convicted of murder and sentenced to being made average intelligence instead of his genius iq he currently had. It was pointed out during the trial that if the guy had told him about the code first, he could have negotiated for a license to use it, but because he wasn't given that option, he wound up breaking the law.
It really was an interesting read. The discussion over seeing or not code in the forums and their licenses made me remember it. <shrug>
@idbruce
C.W. Has a point in this case. Having seen the code and the overall approach to solving a problem makes it more difficult to come up with a truly independent solution. You will be influenced by the code you have seen even though you may try to avoid it. I would much rather know in advance what type of license is used so I can avoid looking at code that has a restrictive license.
I applaud Parallax for making it clear that anything posted in these forums or the OBEX in future will be using the MIT license.
Why would that be a problem?
We are talking copyright law here not patents. If you get an idea from reading some code and then write your own code using that idea no harm done. Actual ideas are subject to patent law, if applicable, not copyright law.
If what you are saying was a problem then authors would never be able to read books. How crazy would that be?
Yep, true. I know the Compaq BIOS story. Given that they were probably using IBM PC's on which to write and build their new BIOS and that IBM PC's came with the source of the BIOS in the back of the manual, I always thought that was all just smoke and mirrors. All the engineers probably had the BIOS source sitting on their desk!
So, anyway, it is as crazy as I suggested. Computers programmers are authors that are not allowed to read the works of their fellow authors. Bizarre.
LOL I would imagine that is a fair assumption, but they all want to be able to claim ignorance.
Additionally, by looking at someone elses source, improvements can be made, and new ideas can develop, which the original author obviously never thought of.
In the past, many times I have examined other peoples source code, just to get the overall scheme of things, and then start building from scratch, with the functions and methods available. Of course, ignorance could be a good line of defense, but I think, in the case of infringement, the two bodies of work would be examined for similarities, and a determination would most likely be based upon similarities, and not based upon the fact that someone claims they never seen a specific body of work.
But I also thing that the "clean room" BIOS rewrite had another purpose. As far as I know Compaq did not publish the source to their BIOS as IBM did (anyone know for sure?). Why would they? It would make it easier for other cloners. Given that only the binary was released, in the EPROMs, then they had to have a way to say that the code was clean, hence the "clean room" charade.
I have decided to use MIDI to write music and I'm coping everyone's posted code. Muuuhhaahhaaha... I shall be the richest Propeller musician that has ever lived.
Hey no copying... I thought of it first!