Paul,
Thank you. I would be happy with your definitions in a quick link labelled "definitions" or "rules" or "purpose" or something similar to a help page that would include any conditions for authors (like the absence of GPL restrictions or use of BSD type licensing "to make objects available to the widest range of uses, including commercial products").
Mike
Thanks for clearing that up. I think there was a lot of confusion perpetrated by the use of the phrase "public domain", which means "free of copyright". Public domain is where things end up when their copyrights expire (or used to anyway, no thanks the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act). The BSD License, I believe, is a reasonable compromise and is very similar to the Lesser General Public License (LGPL), which is also appropriate for program libraries.
Please forgive my ignorance... but can someone briefly explain the difference between copyright and licensing?
It seems to me that a putting a copyright on a piece of software restricts copying or writing of software directly derived from the original, but it doesn't restrict writing software that performs a similar function so long as the two pieces of software are different enough so as not to be actual copies of each other (enter the Lawyers at this point). Doesn't this interpretation conflict with the concept of releasing "copyrighted" software in the "public domain" for anyone to use in any way - even in commercial products.
Perhaps there is an order of precedence involved? Something like I can hold the copyright on a piece of software, but at the same time "waive" some or all of the copyright by issuing a license in parallel?
Drone said...
Please forgive my ignorance... but can someone briefly explain the difference between copyright and licensing?
Something like I can hold the copyright on a piece of software, but at the same time "waive" some or all of the copyright by issuing a license in parallel?
IANAL, but my understanding is that the Copyright holder is the one with the rights to control and dictate how their work can be used and how it cannot be used. The License grants others rights to use that work in the terms specified or to not allow its use otherwise.
Retaining Copyright secures your right to specify terms of its use. You can retain Copyright and impose a restrictive License. You can retain Copyright and grant a License for anyone to do whatever they want with your work. You can relinquish Copyright and forgo all rights to specify terms of its use.
You either retain Copyright or do not, there's no halfway house. You can however hand Copyright control to others and even share it with others - How that works in law depends upon local jurisdiction and legislation.
Copyright : The right to set terms of use.
Licensing : What the terms of use are.
What wording should I put in my source code if I want others to be able to use it freely for non-commercial use, but require a small (a couple bucks) for commercial use ?
Can such source code be included in the obex ?
I tried using the wording "Open-Source", but I was told that was not correct.
Bean,
1) You'd have to claim copyright because you're retaining the right to set the terms of use.
Somewhere you'd have to indicate the licensing terms "No charge for non-commercial use.
Contact Hitt Consulting for commercial use." or some such. Often this is in a "read me" file,
but could also be in the source comments.
2) My understanding of the ObEx (confirmed by Paul's comments) is that anything posted
there must be freely available for any purpose. That excludes things where there's a charge
for certain purposes. Those can be posted in the forum as attachments to threads.
3) Open source would include the case you've mentioned where a fee is charged for commercial
use. There are many licenses used for open source, some are more restrictive than others. There's
a good article on the subject in the Wikipedia that discusses the history and nuances. Search for
"wiki open source".
Thanks Hippy for the reply regarding Copyright vs. Licenses. I agree. After a bit more research online I've seen some copyright vs. software licensing language (many citing Larry Lessig) that concurs with your summary:
Copyright : The right to set terms of use.
Licensing : What the terms of use are.
Well-put Hippy - but ahh; if Life were only so simple...
I'm glad that this issue is getting some discussion... I came across some beautiful code in the forum, which contains a copyright. And just as soon as UPS decides to deliver my hardware to me I was planning to integrate this code(in a minimally modified form) into a project and post the whole thing to the forum. Technically, I think this violates the copy rights of the author... in reality, I think most authors post their code to help everyone and don't mind this kind of re-issue.
A simple copy right notice by individual authors doesn't help me much...
I'm not interested in talking to attorneys... and if I assume that reposting a file from the forum in its original form back to the forum is ok... then it seems like one of these days, I'm going to be talking to someone's lawyer.
If I understand the legal situation, when code is posted to the forum with a simple copyright notice, everyone is free to use that code but no-one is free to claim it as their own or republish it in any form with out the permission of the author. If this permission is not explicitly stated in the original posting, it cannot be consider to be implied or understood to exist.
Parallax has its head on straight, but others might not.
I think Parallax should consider extracting an explicit statement form object exchange authors about what re-usage is permissible and what is not... for each object.
And as to the forum, I think that a general statement of understanding and intent by Parallax about the re-use of copy protected code should be posted in a prominent location.
This would be a service to everyone, including the authors.
This forum belongs to Parallax... in theory, it is like a newspaper, but unlike a newspaper... every time code is downloaded it is being electronically copied.
I don't understand the logic of "copyrighting" material that is posted in such a way that the only access to it involves generating an electronic copy of that code.
I think what the authors are trying to protect is their claims of authorship... wide distribution does this. A copyright notice simply tells me that this is an original work and if anyone cares to dispute that fact, applicable legal remedies are available. It also tells me that I can't include significant portions of this code and claim them as my own...
What I don't know is if (in fact) this interpretation will keep the lawyers out of my life should I repost code from this forum to the forum to document my own usages of that code.
This doesn't keep me awake at night... but I was really happy to see the issue getting another dusting[noparse]:)[/noparse]
rjo_ said...
was planning to integrate this code(in a minimally modified form) into a project and post the whole thing to the forum. Technically, I think this violates the copy rights of the author... in reality, I think most authors post their code to help everyone and don't mind this kind of re-issue.
A simple copy right notice by individual authors doesn't help me much...
Sure it does. It gives you the name of the person you need to PM or email and ask. As you say, if they've posted open source to the forum, they're probably going to say yes. What's the problem? You ask people when you want to use their copyrighted stuff.
rjo_ said...
And as to the forum, I think that a general statement of understanding and intent by Parallax about the re-use of copy protected code should be posted in a prominent location.
It's not really got anything to do with Parallax. By posting things here, copyright owners have by their actions implicitly given Parallax permission to host the code, and readers of the forum to download it. But nothing else. It's doesn't matter what principles Parallax might state they intend, it doesn't affect the fact that the author has legal copyright. And copyright means it's entirely up to him to decide what can be done with the code.
rjo_ said...
I think what the authors are trying to protect is their claims of authorship... wide distribution does this.
Speaking for myself it's not that at all. It's that my code is my baby, and I want to be in control of it's future.
rjo_ said...
A copyright notice simply tells me that this is an original work and if anyone cares to dispute that fact, applicable legal remedies are available. It also tells me that I can't include significant portions of this code and claim them as my own...
More than that, it means you can't distribute it elsewhere without permission, even if you are upfront about the author.
rjo_ said...
What I don't know is if (in fact) this interpretation will keep the lawyers out of my life should I repost code from this forum to the forum to document my own usages of that code.
I should forget about lawyers - it's too small a pond for anyone to pay a lawyer for a single hour of his time. It's more to do with doing the right thing within the community. And a simple message to the author to ask is the polite thing to do, as well as being the legally right move.
In my experience with PropDOS, it was a simple matter of PM'ing all of the authors who created various objects I am using and asking permission to distribute. I figure all
someone can do is say no. (an unlikely occurrence here.. [noparse]:)[/noparse]
OBC
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔ New to the Propeller?
Getting started with the Protoboard? - Propeller Cookbook
Got an SD card? - PropDOS
A Living Propeller FAQ - The Propeller Wiki (Got the Knowledge? Got a Moment? Add something today!)
I had to go through this stuff with a company in Germany using my GPL code. They hired a new guy, who found this out and contacted me straight away. (which I appreciated, as I would never have known otherwise)
After some back and forth, we didn't want something simple to get hosed up and expensive, so we punted and both paid some membership fees to the Free Software Foundation, who will advise members as to how these things go. Turns out, we both were happy with some pretty minor things. My name went into the credits somewhere, and they were to send any new patches to the project, to be published under the GPL license, with copyright assigned to me, for the purpose of keeping the project dead simple for passers by, looking to run some open stuff. (they sent a coupla nice ones too!) They get to incorporate the code into their commercial work, and all is good. It was my first experience with multiple licensing.
I had originally wrote that particular code to gain some skill, and learn by doing where open source code is concerned. Did it to give back too, as I use the body of open code *a lot*. Might as well toss something in there, for the greater good.
Some stuff I learned along the way:
Copyright: The author of a creative work automatically has copyright, it happens at the moment of creation. Copyright is essentially having a say over what is permissible where derivative works, or distribution is concerned. Derivatives are works that embody the authors work, in whole, or in part, to form a new work. Distribution is essentially duplication of said work, from one party to another. Use of the work, almost always involves both of these things. (one copies code from storage to memory, in order to execute, for example.)
I used the word embody, because there is a particular case where open code can be packaged along with, closed code, and be ok. If it's not part of the build process, then it's just being distributed and is not derivative. Just FYI.
License: Is essentially the terms of use, as dictated by the author. Best form is this: One does not use software one didn't write, without a license. That's a really easy way to sort this stuff out. Everything has a license of some kind! (I never knew this early on!) All anybody needs to do is be able to cite the license they are operating under, or put another way, that grants their entitlement to the work in question. Easiest way is to give credit, and cite the source for the license there.
eg: (already done, but one more just can't hurt)
The object exchange is published by Parallax. The terms for contributing code to the repository are spelled out to potential contributors. By placing their code in there, they agree that any use is permitted, be it commercial or personal. That's essentially Parallax asking authors to grant a license in exchange for their code being published to a greater body of potential users. Anyone then may contribute to, or pull from this, according to the "public domain" license as stated in the exchange. Anyone with any questions can simply reference the Parallax license, and all is good for all parties. Simple, easy, clean.
This does not negate copyright, as the author is still the author!
For code found elsewhere --anywhere really, one needs to do some work to understand the license attached to it. Some of the time, the repository where the code is obtained will have a license, and that's a lot like the object exchange. Other times, the code itself will contain a license, or more likely a reference to a license. This is like BSD, GPL, Creative Commons, etc... Each of those licenses are maintained by special interest groups, dedicated to making the license as useful as possible. Despite all the discussion surrounding these, they are pretty clear and clean. Of these, BSD is the most commercial friendly, generally only requiring credit be given. (see Microsoft's credits for some BSD stuff)
If the license terms are not obvious, or are custom as in somebody just wrote their own license, it's best to just ask! Licenses cited by reference, such as "GPL 2.x", are pretty clear. They've been deliberated and are generally well understood. Custom, as in "Hi, I'm Bob the coder and this is what I permit...", are not generally well understood, nor are they deliberated. Better ask on these, as nothing is clear.
One common misunderstanding that comes up, usually surrounding the difference between copyright and licenses, is there some how only being one license for a given work. This is not true at all! An author is free to enter into as many license agreements as they see fit.
So let's say somebody posts up something GPL. This license requires that derivative works also be GPL, but places no real use or distribution restrictions on the code. (there are some, but not many) You see this code and would like to incorporate it commercially, and said commercial project cannot be open for whatever reason. In this case, contacting the author for appropriate license terms is the right thing to do. Should you and the author come to some arrangement, it's all good, and is no different than any other kind of license agreement, despite the default license being of the "keep it open forever" kind.
Ask, and 'ye are likely to receive --or at the least, end up with enough clarity to make solid choices from there.
A whole lot of people go their lives without having to differentiate these things. I consider it like learning to solder. Just one of those things to be mastered for the hobby. Reading a little Lessig doesn't hurt either [noparse]:)[/noparse]
CODE and Other Laws of Cyberspace is highly recommended. Not only does it provide some excellent background that helps to understand this stuff, but it also covers the nature of Law and how it fits into the general means and methods by which we regulate behavior. (those are: law, money, physics, norms) Probably one of the most interesting books I've ever read. This book can be had for the download, under the Creative Commons license, BTW. If this is your thing, it's some time well spent.
One problem is finding license terms which meet what an author wants. For me that means I'm happy for anyone ( commercial or non-commercial ) to benefit from my published work but if someone is making a load of money on the back of my effort I'd like to see a fair slice of that.
Putting that notion into simple, absolute, legal terms is not however easy. And quite pointless as well I suspect. Anyone making enough money from my work to make me rich probably has enough money to stop me getting rich.
I have the same feelings as Hippy. But how putting it into words and enforcement would be difficult.
As for the Object Exchange, I would be happy with making the rule that it can be used without a fee WITH PERMISSION FROM THE AUTHOR.
I could think of many devices people could make using my overlay module that I would be ethically opposed to.
"Usable without a fee for non-commercial use, contact the author for commercial use" would be a better option but would still go against Parallax's intent for Obex. I can understand the concern of 'ethical use' ( I have them too ) but again there's no easy way to put that in legal language.
For Obex I'm happy for Parallax to set the rules as to what those publishing there must accept and all the consequences which come with that, and for authors to decide to publish there or not. That will mean some things do not make it to Obex but publication elsewhere isn't prohibited.
Perhaps the solution is an Obex in two parts; Public Domain ( free for all any purposes ), and more restrictive licensed offerings ?
That would then benefit Parallax in that objects available were easy to locate via Obex if not Public Domain. OTOH, it could be argued as using Obex to promote 'objects for sale', so there's no simple perfect solution. Public Domain and Unrestricted Non-Commercial Use would probably be the best for Obex to support. Anything else belongs elsewhere. I'd personally exclude GPL etc from the Obex as use is not "unrestricted".
There are repositories that solve this problem pretty nicely, IMHO.
I used sourceforge for my 3D STL CAD file viewer, written in C. You ask them for a project registration (which they pretty much always approve). From there, you get to pick your license, have revision control, mailing list, bug tracker, etc... If you want, you can put up a donate link, and hope for tips in the tip jar. I just use SSH for my user space access, and check in's / commits via the revision control system. If you want some screenies hosted, no biggie. Same with a simple and clean project / home page, or maybe just redirect that. Your choice. There are stats kept too, so you can see, over time, if there were downloads.
All in all, not a bad deal for free. They host lots of stuff, display some ads, provide a search / classification system, etc...
If you move to a new machine, or dev environment, it's easy enough just to pull your latest greatest code tree, and start from there. Nice to have a backup!
There is no reason why propeller code cannot be stored on a system like that. Code is code really.
Stuff put there, GPL, or something, means non-commercial and it's got some teeth, because the legal matters have been sorted out and expectations are set. My experience above was that sometimes stuff gets used. On the flip side, it's really easy for others to see the work and contact you about it. Using a repository does not limit your commercial license options, making the greater exposure more or less a win-win, IMHO. This is a nice alternative to the OBEX. (which I like the idea of, BTW --it's simple, and necessary.)
Teams are allowed, and encouraged too. Perhaps a propeller general project could be requested. Anybody wanting to contribute could get added as a team member, putting a nice chunk of "either use it for personal hobby use, open, or contact us for closed commercial use" code out there, as an alternative for those wanting it.
@Hippy & Bean: Yeah, that's a really hard one! What is "a ton of money?". Dead end right there. Even an absolute amount is subject to creative accounting and one wouldn't know anyway.
What do you two think of something open, but making money? In that scenario, you wouldn't see revenue, but would get credit. Just curious as to how you see that.
Another option would be to put a sub-set of code in the object exchange. Make that subset useful, so it follows the spirit of the whole thing. In the header, or packaged along with the project, you can easily reference where and how more fully realized code and related info / hardware can be found, along with contact information. The sub-set can fall in the range where it's easy enough one could likely write it, but the object exchange saves time and or helps with learning. From there, getting more complex is either worth contacting somebody, or not worth doing period. Likely a happy medium for all involved.
@ potatohead : Open and making money, fame but no fortune; I would be happy with that.
I think we all like to be appreciated ( "fame" ) and it's perhaps the best measure we have of having done something worthwhile in our lives ( not to be confused with "celebrity" ).
Beyond that we can be altruistic and measure our worth by what we give and measure our success by simply giving as much as we can, but we can also be selfish, wanting to benefit personally by what we achieve, know and learn. Where we want to be between those two is a matter of personal taste but no reason not to be both as circumstances dictate. Of course it's often easier to be altruistic when one doesn't need money. The bottom line is how we measure our personal "success".
This entire thread is like fingernails on a blackboard.
I suggest that the non-freely sharing forum users assemble a spreadsheet identifying their particular flavor of rights and post it so people like me can decide to bother opening their files or not.
Or maybe amending their avatar so you can figure it out at a glance. (Iconography is, of course, a matter individual taste, though locks, jails, lawyers with briefcases and electric chairs come to mind.)
All in all, it's a good thing that most of this thread's posters did not work at Xerox-Parc.
The idea of it all is depressing to me personally. However, there is an upside. Working through it once, does make things easy and clear. That's actually a good thing. I pretty much don't care so much, where my works are concerned. It's all fun 'n games to me personally. (the day job involves the occasional work for hire gig, but they are paying... leaving me with few worries.) Being exploited does suck though. On the other hand, getting to look at lots of code, download stuff, run emulators, build things, is just great! If we didn't have some infrastructure, the default would be largely closed, and that does not bode well for those of us just looking for some fun.
There is this too:
If it's for your own pleasure, on your own stuff, you can pretty much do what you will. So, opening the files does one no real harm.
So has it been decided on the issue of code and sniplets posting to all members on the forums?
I beleive in giving credit to the author is appropriate when any code or sniplet posted by the forum members is to be used and modified in your own projects.
Using code and sniplets in how we learn to program. The Help files·from Parallax have example code too.
So if Bean or JonnyMac, for example posts code due to a·members call for help, it is fair for all·members interested·to use it in their own programs. Right?
The code presented on the forum remains the copyright of the original author. Non-commercial use is generally permitted, but commercial use should obtain the permisison of the author. The exception is if the author submitted thier work to the object exchange where explicit commercial use is provided (but the obex version should be used since it has the MIT liscence contained within).
Comments
Thank you. I would be happy with your definitions in a quick link labelled "definitions" or "rules" or "purpose" or something similar to a help page that would include any conditions for authors (like the absence of GPL restrictions or use of BSD type licensing "to make objects available to the widest range of uses, including commercial products").
Mike
Thanks for clearing that up. I think there was a lot of confusion perpetrated by the use of the phrase "public domain", which means "free of copyright". Public domain is where things end up when their copyrights expire (or used to anyway, no thanks the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act). The BSD License, I believe, is a reasonable compromise and is very similar to the Lesser General Public License (LGPL), which is also appropriate for program libraries.
-Phil
It seems to me that a putting a copyright on a piece of software restricts copying or writing of software directly derived from the original, but it doesn't restrict writing software that performs a similar function so long as the two pieces of software are different enough so as not to be actual copies of each other (enter the Lawyers at this point). Doesn't this interpretation conflict with the concept of releasing "copyrighted" software in the "public domain" for anyone to use in any way - even in commercial products.
Perhaps there is an order of precedence involved? Something like I can hold the copyright on a piece of software, but at the same time "waive" some or all of the copyright by issuing a license in parallel?
Thanks - David
Post Edited (Drone) : 12/29/2007 11:45:55 AM GMT
IANAL, but my understanding is that the Copyright holder is the one with the rights to control and dictate how their work can be used and how it cannot be used. The License grants others rights to use that work in the terms specified or to not allow its use otherwise.
Retaining Copyright secures your right to specify terms of its use. You can retain Copyright and impose a restrictive License. You can retain Copyright and grant a License for anyone to do whatever they want with your work. You can relinquish Copyright and forgo all rights to specify terms of its use.
You either retain Copyright or do not, there's no halfway house. You can however hand Copyright control to others and even share it with others - How that works in law depends upon local jurisdiction and legislation.
Copyright : The right to set terms of use.
Licensing : What the terms of use are.
Post Edited (hippy) : 12/29/2007 2:10:29 PM GMT
Can such source code be included in the obex ?
I tried using the wording "Open-Source", but I was told that was not correct.
Bean
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
www.iElectronicDesigns.com
·
1) You'd have to claim copyright because you're retaining the right to set the terms of use.
Somewhere you'd have to indicate the licensing terms "No charge for non-commercial use.
Contact Hitt Consulting for commercial use." or some such. Often this is in a "read me" file,
but could also be in the source comments.
2) My understanding of the ObEx (confirmed by Paul's comments) is that anything posted
there must be freely available for any purpose. That excludes things where there's a charge
for certain purposes. Those can be posted in the forum as attachments to threads.
3) Open source would include the case you've mentioned where a fee is charged for commercial
use. There are many licenses used for open source, some are more restrictive than others. There's
a good article on the subject in the Wikipedia that discusses the history and nuances. Search for
"wiki open source".
Copyright : The right to set terms of use.
Licensing : What the terms of use are.
Well-put Hippy - but ahh; if Life were only so simple...
David
A simple copy right notice by individual authors doesn't help me much...
I'm not interested in talking to attorneys... and if I assume that reposting a file from the forum in its original form back to the forum is ok... then it seems like one of these days, I'm going to be talking to someone's lawyer.
If I understand the legal situation, when code is posted to the forum with a simple copyright notice, everyone is free to use that code but no-one is free to claim it as their own or republish it in any form with out the permission of the author. If this permission is not explicitly stated in the original posting, it cannot be consider to be implied or understood to exist.
Parallax has its head on straight, but others might not.
I think Parallax should consider extracting an explicit statement form object exchange authors about what re-usage is permissible and what is not... for each object.
And as to the forum, I think that a general statement of understanding and intent by Parallax about the re-use of copy protected code should be posted in a prominent location.
This would be a service to everyone, including the authors.
This forum belongs to Parallax... in theory, it is like a newspaper, but unlike a newspaper... every time code is downloaded it is being electronically copied.
I don't understand the logic of "copyrighting" material that is posted in such a way that the only access to it involves generating an electronic copy of that code.
I think what the authors are trying to protect is their claims of authorship... wide distribution does this. A copyright notice simply tells me that this is an original work and if anyone cares to dispute that fact, applicable legal remedies are available. It also tells me that I can't include significant portions of this code and claim them as my own...
What I don't know is if (in fact) this interpretation will keep the lawyers out of my life should I repost code from this forum to the forum to document my own usages of that code.
This doesn't keep me awake at night... but I was really happy to see the issue getting another dusting[noparse]:)[/noparse]
Rich
Sure it does. It gives you the name of the person you need to PM or email and ask. As you say, if they've posted open source to the forum, they're probably going to say yes. What's the problem? You ask people when you want to use their copyrighted stuff.
It's not really got anything to do with Parallax. By posting things here, copyright owners have by their actions implicitly given Parallax permission to host the code, and readers of the forum to download it. But nothing else. It's doesn't matter what principles Parallax might state they intend, it doesn't affect the fact that the author has legal copyright. And copyright means it's entirely up to him to decide what can be done with the code.
Speaking for myself it's not that at all. It's that my code is my baby, and I want to be in control of it's future.
More than that, it means you can't distribute it elsewhere without permission, even if you are upfront about the author.
I should forget about lawyers - it's too small a pond for anyone to pay a lawyer for a single hour of his time. It's more to do with doing the right thing within the community. And a simple message to the author to ask is the polite thing to do, as well as being the legally right move.
All IMHO, and speaking for my code.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Help to build the Propeller wiki - propeller.wikispaces.com
Play Defender - Propeller version of the classic game
Prop Room Robotics - my web store for Roomba spare parts in the UK
In my experience with PropDOS, it was a simple matter of PM'ing all of the authors who created various objects I am using and asking permission to distribute. I figure all
someone can do is say no. (an unlikely occurrence here.. [noparse]:)[/noparse]
OBC
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
New to the Propeller?
Getting started with the Protoboard? - Propeller Cookbook
Got an SD card? - PropDOS
A Living Propeller FAQ - The Propeller Wiki
(Got the Knowledge? Got a Moment? Add something today!)
After some back and forth, we didn't want something simple to get hosed up and expensive, so we punted and both paid some membership fees to the Free Software Foundation, who will advise members as to how these things go. Turns out, we both were happy with some pretty minor things. My name went into the credits somewhere, and they were to send any new patches to the project, to be published under the GPL license, with copyright assigned to me, for the purpose of keeping the project dead simple for passers by, looking to run some open stuff. (they sent a coupla nice ones too!) They get to incorporate the code into their commercial work, and all is good. It was my first experience with multiple licensing.
I had originally wrote that particular code to gain some skill, and learn by doing where open source code is concerned. Did it to give back too, as I use the body of open code *a lot*. Might as well toss something in there, for the greater good.
Some stuff I learned along the way:
Copyright: The author of a creative work automatically has copyright, it happens at the moment of creation. Copyright is essentially having a say over what is permissible where derivative works, or distribution is concerned. Derivatives are works that embody the authors work, in whole, or in part, to form a new work. Distribution is essentially duplication of said work, from one party to another. Use of the work, almost always involves both of these things. (one copies code from storage to memory, in order to execute, for example.)
I used the word embody, because there is a particular case where open code can be packaged along with, closed code, and be ok. If it's not part of the build process, then it's just being distributed and is not derivative. Just FYI.
License: Is essentially the terms of use, as dictated by the author. Best form is this: One does not use software one didn't write, without a license. That's a really easy way to sort this stuff out. Everything has a license of some kind! (I never knew this early on!) All anybody needs to do is be able to cite the license they are operating under, or put another way, that grants their entitlement to the work in question. Easiest way is to give credit, and cite the source for the license there.
eg: (already done, but one more just can't hurt)
The object exchange is published by Parallax. The terms for contributing code to the repository are spelled out to potential contributors. By placing their code in there, they agree that any use is permitted, be it commercial or personal. That's essentially Parallax asking authors to grant a license in exchange for their code being published to a greater body of potential users. Anyone then may contribute to, or pull from this, according to the "public domain" license as stated in the exchange. Anyone with any questions can simply reference the Parallax license, and all is good for all parties. Simple, easy, clean.
This does not negate copyright, as the author is still the author!
For code found elsewhere --anywhere really, one needs to do some work to understand the license attached to it. Some of the time, the repository where the code is obtained will have a license, and that's a lot like the object exchange. Other times, the code itself will contain a license, or more likely a reference to a license. This is like BSD, GPL, Creative Commons, etc... Each of those licenses are maintained by special interest groups, dedicated to making the license as useful as possible. Despite all the discussion surrounding these, they are pretty clear and clean. Of these, BSD is the most commercial friendly, generally only requiring credit be given. (see Microsoft's credits for some BSD stuff)
If the license terms are not obvious, or are custom as in somebody just wrote their own license, it's best to just ask! Licenses cited by reference, such as "GPL 2.x", are pretty clear. They've been deliberated and are generally well understood. Custom, as in "Hi, I'm Bob the coder and this is what I permit...", are not generally well understood, nor are they deliberated. Better ask on these, as nothing is clear.
One common misunderstanding that comes up, usually surrounding the difference between copyright and licenses, is there some how only being one license for a given work. This is not true at all! An author is free to enter into as many license agreements as they see fit.
So let's say somebody posts up something GPL. This license requires that derivative works also be GPL, but places no real use or distribution restrictions on the code. (there are some, but not many) You see this code and would like to incorporate it commercially, and said commercial project cannot be open for whatever reason. In this case, contacting the author for appropriate license terms is the right thing to do. Should you and the author come to some arrangement, it's all good, and is no different than any other kind of license agreement, despite the default license being of the "keep it open forever" kind.
Ask, and 'ye are likely to receive --or at the least, end up with enough clarity to make solid choices from there.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
We live in a litigious society... getting the rules straight and living by them is all it really takes. I should know this stuff, but I really didn't.
Thanks,
Rich
A whole lot of people go their lives without having to differentiate these things. I consider it like learning to solder. Just one of those things to be mastered for the hobby. Reading a little Lessig doesn't hurt either [noparse]:)[/noparse]
CODE and Other Laws of Cyberspace is highly recommended. Not only does it provide some excellent background that helps to understand this stuff, but it also covers the nature of Law and how it fits into the general means and methods by which we regulate behavior. (those are: law, money, physics, norms) Probably one of the most interesting books I've ever read. This book can be had for the download, under the Creative Commons license, BTW. If this is your thing, it's some time well spent.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Post Edited (potatohead) : 12/30/2007 6:30:11 AM GMT
If you LISTENED·to your·exalted ruler, saviour·Chip Gracey
···· Youd know that things like this dont work
Maybe you should approach security·from hardware sentinel.· Hehehe, thats the devil.
·
Putting that notion into simple, absolute, legal terms is not however easy. And quite pointless as well I suspect. Anyone making enough money from my work to make me rich probably has enough money to stop me getting rich.
As for the Object Exchange, I would be happy with making the rule that it can be used without a fee WITH PERMISSION FROM THE AUTHOR.
I could think of many devices people could make using my overlay module that I would be ethically opposed to.
Bean.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
www.iElectronicDesigns.com
·
For Obex I'm happy for Parallax to set the rules as to what those publishing there must accept and all the consequences which come with that, and for authors to decide to publish there or not. That will mean some things do not make it to Obex but publication elsewhere isn't prohibited.
Perhaps the solution is an Obex in two parts; Public Domain ( free for all any purposes ), and more restrictive licensed offerings ?
That would then benefit Parallax in that objects available were easy to locate via Obex if not Public Domain. OTOH, it could be argued as using Obex to promote 'objects for sale', so there's no simple perfect solution. Public Domain and Unrestricted Non-Commercial Use would probably be the best for Obex to support. Anything else belongs elsewhere. I'd personally exclude GPL etc from the Obex as use is not "unrestricted".
I used sourceforge for my 3D STL CAD file viewer, written in C. You ask them for a project registration (which they pretty much always approve). From there, you get to pick your license, have revision control, mailing list, bug tracker, etc... If you want, you can put up a donate link, and hope for tips in the tip jar. I just use SSH for my user space access, and check in's / commits via the revision control system. If you want some screenies hosted, no biggie. Same with a simple and clean project / home page, or maybe just redirect that. Your choice. There are stats kept too, so you can see, over time, if there were downloads.
All in all, not a bad deal for free. They host lots of stuff, display some ads, provide a search / classification system, etc...
If you move to a new machine, or dev environment, it's easy enough just to pull your latest greatest code tree, and start from there. Nice to have a backup!
There is no reason why propeller code cannot be stored on a system like that. Code is code really.
Stuff put there, GPL, or something, means non-commercial and it's got some teeth, because the legal matters have been sorted out and expectations are set. My experience above was that sometimes stuff gets used. On the flip side, it's really easy for others to see the work and contact you about it. Using a repository does not limit your commercial license options, making the greater exposure more or less a win-win, IMHO. This is a nice alternative to the OBEX. (which I like the idea of, BTW --it's simple, and necessary.)
Teams are allowed, and encouraged too. Perhaps a propeller general project could be requested. Anybody wanting to contribute could get added as a team member, putting a nice chunk of "either use it for personal hobby use, open, or contact us for closed commercial use" code out there, as an alternative for those wanting it.
@Hippy & Bean: Yeah, that's a really hard one! What is "a ton of money?". Dead end right there. Even an absolute amount is subject to creative accounting and one wouldn't know anyway.
What do you two think of something open, but making money? In that scenario, you wouldn't see revenue, but would get credit. Just curious as to how you see that.
Another option would be to put a sub-set of code in the object exchange. Make that subset useful, so it follows the spirit of the whole thing. In the header, or packaged along with the project, you can easily reference where and how more fully realized code and related info / hardware can be found, along with contact information. The sub-set can fall in the range where it's easy enough one could likely write it, but the object exchange saves time and or helps with learning. From there, getting more complex is either worth contacting somebody, or not worth doing period. Likely a happy medium for all involved.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Post Edited (potatohead) : 12/30/2007 6:09:54 PM GMT
I think we all like to be appreciated ( "fame" ) and it's perhaps the best measure we have of having done something worthwhile in our lives ( not to be confused with "celebrity" ).
Beyond that we can be altruistic and measure our worth by what we give and measure our success by simply giving as much as we can, but we can also be selfish, wanting to benefit personally by what we achieve, know and learn. Where we want to be between those two is a matter of personal taste but no reason not to be both as circumstances dictate. Of course it's often easier to be altruistic when one doesn't need money. The bottom line is how we measure our personal "success".
Success is, IMHO, all about setting, then managing personal expectations. Took me way too long to figure that out.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
I suggest that the non-freely sharing forum users assemble a spreadsheet identifying their particular flavor of rights and post it so people like me can decide to bother opening their files or not.
Or maybe amending their avatar so you can figure it out at a glance. (Iconography is, of course, a matter individual taste, though locks, jails, lawyers with briefcases and electric chairs come to mind.)
All in all, it's a good thing that most of this thread's posters did not work at Xerox-Parc.
Good one. [noparse];)[/noparse]
Everything I do and write for the Propeller is free for any use.
I make my money programming else where.
Most of my prop stuff is just toys anyway in the computing world.
The idea of it all is depressing to me personally. However, there is an upside. Working through it once, does make things easy and clear. That's actually a good thing. I pretty much don't care so much, where my works are concerned. It's all fun 'n games to me personally. (the day job involves the occasional work for hire gig, but they are paying... leaving me with few worries.) Being exploited does suck though. On the other hand, getting to look at lots of code, download stuff, run emulators, build things, is just great! If we didn't have some infrastructure, the default would be largely closed, and that does not bode well for those of us just looking for some fun.
There is this too:
If it's for your own pleasure, on your own stuff, you can pretty much do what you will. So, opening the files does one no real harm.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
If it's hosed up somewhere, either make an edit, or please PM me. Thanks.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
I beleive in giving credit to the author is appropriate when any code or sniplet posted by the forum members is to be used and modified in your own projects.
Using code and sniplets in how we learn to program. The Help files·from Parallax have example code too.
So if Bean or JonnyMac, for example posts code due to a·members call for help, it is fair for all·members interested·to use it in their own programs. Right?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker
Propeller Applications Engineer
Parallax, Inc.