Copyright

[Brianwarnock]

A poster has included the following in code he has put foreward as solution to another's problem, I was under the impression that what we did here was purly altruistic. What do others think?

Brian

' This code was originally written by Dev Ashish.
' It is not to be altered or distributed,
' except as part of an application.
' You are free to use it in any application,
' provided the copyright notice is left unchanged.

 

[KenHigg]

Seems a waste. Would anyone really try to enforce it when used in a post around here? Probably just a coding habit.

 

[pono1]

I think it's mostly fine -- and still mostly altruistic. The code is available to use free of charge. The author is asking for credit where credit is due -- of course there's a bit of advertising going on here as well but among the development community it's a common courtesy (and, in my view, sensible) to attribute code to its original author, even if many people are happy take sole credit for things they may not have done on their own.

Regards,
Tim

 

[The_Doc_Man]

OK, from the technical side of things, this is of questionable value. There is a lower size limit on what can be copyrighted. For a code snippet, there is NO protection no matter what the author does.

I agree with Pono1. From the professional side of things, it is a request for recognition. Give credit where credit is due. Which is only fair.

From a practical viewpoint, the request for keeping the code intact might be lost in the shuffle if the offered solution isn't QUITE right and needs a little bit of percussive engineering. I.e. bang on it until it fits....

You can expect ANY solution offered through these fora to be modified to fit the needs of the thread author. So the request to keep it pure is a waste in the sense that if it don't fit, it ain't gonna be used anyway.

 

[macca the hacke]

I apologise for keeping the copyright in. I was just copying and pasting some existing code that fitted the requirements of the person with the issue. Normally I don't bother.

 

[Brianwarnock]

From a practical viewpoint, the request for keeping the code intact might be lost in the shuffle if the offered solution isn't QUITE right and needs a little bit of percussive engineering. I.e. bang on it until it fits....

You can expect ANY solution offered through these fora to be modified to fit the needs of the thread author. So the request to keep it pure is a waste in the sense that if it don't fit, it ain't gonna be used anyway.

This is what worried me, it might scare off a newbie who needed a small modification, I totally agree on the recognition issue, even if I sometimes foget to put my name to code, which in my case might be a good thing.

I see Macca has apologised but I was just after the general feeling on this , but big on you Macca as you weren't identified.

Brian

 

[Vassago]

Don't apologize for leaving it in. You SHOULD leave that in since you didn't originally write the code. As far as copyrights, it's only truly copyrighted if the person purchased a copyright for it. If they didn't, they have no reall claim on it as there's no proof that they originally wrote it.

 

[Len Boorman]

I think that generally we all fall into a fairly simple category

We help others (or try to anyway) really cos we like to help if we can and we all started as total amateurs. Also If we help we do like a little word occassionally to say we helped.

In our own "business" situtions we may well individually apply all sorts of safeguards, protections etc of our work which is absolutely correct.

Macca,as has been said you were not identified and you have apologised. I do not think an apology was necessary at all as indeed others have also said

I think the spirit shown by the contributors to this Forum is really excellent. It alway has been and I see no change in that spirit

Len

 

[Vassago]

Please keep the copyrights in at all times, it shows that you are honoring the original writer of the code so they get credit for it. If you don't, it looks like you wrote it and only causes confusion later, especially if the creator happens to see it and get upset. No need to cause undue distress.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Copyright saying how the code can and cannot be used, and acknowledging authorship, are two different things, the second is not only polite but sensible, I personally don't think the former has a place on a forum such as this, but that's only my opinion.

Brian

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

My problem with "copyright" is this: Where did the code originally come from?

In other words most of what you do is learnt from books, whether you do this yourself, or you are taught in a class. So in one sense as soon as you start writing code, you are including stuff you have learned, therefore you are probably infringing the authors copyright.

However the author wrote it in the first place for you to buy it, Hence you have a right to use it.

The text I have just written, is mine, I have for the copyright on what I write. (not strictly true within a forum I suppose) but I think you can understand the principle in what I say.

So if you apply that same principle to writing code, then the elements of the code are "words" and "sentences", the sentences are probably the equivalent in code to a statement like an if then statement or a case block.

So if I see someone's code, a 50 line routine and I copy that straight into my module and use it. I suppose that is copyright infringement. However as soon as I start adding my own bits, changing it to suit my own personal personal preferences like calling a function with the "Call" word, changing the field names and variables that are affected, it is then my own.

Put it another way, I interview a famous person, I right down what they say in my own words, adding my own comments and view on the discussion, write it up for a magazine article, I have the copyright.

Someone else sees what I have written and copies it verbatim, that's copyright infringement.

However someone else reads what I have written, and then repeats it, but in their own words, from their own particular angle. That is not copyright infringement.

I realize software copyright is different than text copyright I am not sure what the copyright situation is in the UK, on code, I know it's not very good from the developers point of view. I understand that some parts of the united states A developer's protection is excellent.

Cheers Tony

 

[pono1]

Using the word copyright conjures images of attorneys baring their teeth and mailing off their invoices. Another word and phrase to use here might be plagiarize and change control... Avoiding one means doing the other...

[COLOR="Green"]' This class module was originally created by Donald Duck.
' Updated 09 09 2006 by me. Fixed foobar 1.
' Updated 10 09 2006 by me. Added the foobar X function.
' Updated 11 09 2006 by me. Added parameter X to sub Y.
' Updated 12 09 2006 by me. Changed the parameter name in function G.[/COLOR]

There are many shops that insist their programmers document changes in production code...not so much out of an altruisitic desire to give credit to the source code's source (though it happens to cover that) as much as a desire to control change...

 

[Keith Nichols]

CopyLeft

An alternative to copyright:

What is Copyleft?
Copyleft is a general method for making a program or other work free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well.

The simplest way to make a program free software is to put it in the public domain, uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software. They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.

In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we ``copyleft'' it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom.

This might be of interest to those of you who create longer or more complex code and generously make it available here and elsewhere. Kudos to you all.

Read more:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Then, of course, there is the "Ivory Tower" view of copyrighted articles.

When you copy someone else's work, that is plagiarism.

When you copy the work of two different people, that is gross plagiarism.

When you copy the work of at least five different people, that's a review article.

I would show this as except that I have seen too many researchers in my original field of chemistry for whom review articles are a way of life in the "Publish or Perish" environment.