CopyRight

[flowerrobot]

Guys just a thought

 

 

What do you use as a copyright disclamer?

Thought we post some codes online, (manly here for me), no copyright is required as every one is just helping each other and what not.

 

But im asume alot of you guy make programs in your owntime/work

Which however is not shown online.

 

For instance Ive made few programs to reduce work time.

Normally shaving off around 30min per dwg at a min, and for a larger dwg aleast 2-4 hours, and @ around $170 per hour saved, codes can come quite valable.

 

What do you guys do to combant any rip off and the sort.

I normally place the code in a .vlx

and a disclamer of :

 

(thanks buzzard for this)

 

;These programs perform alterations to the trademarked “Item Bubble”, “mass list” & “bolt list’

;This program is not a free software: you cannot redistribute it and/or modify unless written consent from the author.

;It is under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

;This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty.

;See the GNU General Public License for more details.

;See: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html

 

But this was only changed by me.

 

What are you opinions?

[Freerefill]

Copyright is tricky at best. There are a lot of variables to judge, you named a few of the major ones yourself (time, cost, being helpful/respectful). In the end, there is no "right" or "wrong" to what you want to copyright. If I'm correct (and please, someone correct me if I'm not), the law states that technically anything you say you're copyrighting is considered officially copyrighted in the eyes of the law. It's your own intellectual property, and you can decide what you do with it. There are limitations, like, I can't copyright a simple "setq" because.. well it's like copyrighting the concept of a cup. It just doesn't hold water (if you excuse the pun). But then, where is the line drawn? How small or simple of a code do you need before you decide a copyright is worthless, or, how much code can you piece together before you decide a copyright is only right? It really is hard to judge, and each person has their own feelings on it.

 

Personally, if it's a code I write for work, I put my name on it. That, though, is more of a "cover my butt" thing than anything else. For stuff I post on here, I judge it based on whether or not I think someone else of intermediate skill could reproduce without help, or if it's something I've already seen. If it feels unique enough, like my textfind function which uses essentially a GOTO process from BASIC (which I haven't seen elsewhere) or my GrPlayground which acts almost as a quasi-shell to AutoCAD (which again, I haven't seen yet), then I'll feel free to plaster my name on it. Of course, I can only go based on what I've seen. Maybe my ideas are old and boring, even if they are new to me, simply because I haven't google'd enough.

 

It's hard sometimes. I know I could never make money from any of my code, since there's so much free stuff out there and so much free help for that which isn't out there. I also know I'm very much a novice compared to some, so it seems silly to think that my code NEEDS to be protected, since so many others could do so much better. Further, even though I want the recognition for my hard work, I still want people to learn from it and use it and play with it, even dissect it and rebuild from scratch. Given that, I can't in good conscience hide my code from others or demand money or permission to distribute. It's just sort of the way things go, I suppose.

 

And that's my two cents.

[NBC]

Also, please bear in mind that some contracts of employment stipulate that anything done on work time may be subject to the employer holding their intellectual rights to it, and thus the copyright also.

[flowerrobot]

Also, please bear in mind that some contracts of employment stipulate that anything done on work time may be subject to the employer holding their intellectual rights to it, and thus the copyright also.

 

Agreeded, I make it a habit, not to create any program of good use for this very reason, just incase you get on to some thing great.

 

Create a progam entirly in there time, and expect nothing apart from reconition for it.

Or create it in your time, and the discuss with employer

[JohnM]

You can write anything you want in a file saying that it is not to be copied or used but unless you file a copyright with the government it means nothing. Even a poor mans copyright doesn’t hold up in court 90% of the time.

If you don’t want anybody using your code you need to compile it and protect it. Also making distribution packages with the EULA (end users license agreement) can help.

Even with all that it only keeps the honest crooks out.

A few rules to go by are:

Never design or keep source code on an employer’s computer (it will be theirs)

Never post your code on the Internet even if you have a copyright notice.

If you want to distribute your program for free or profit compile it to a VLX then use a hardware key or software key to activate it.

Package the program so the user has to click “I Agree” to install.

Keep records of all transaction.

I sell my programs and I use all the above and so far (that I know of) no one has stolen my stuff.

[flowerrobot]

Thanks for that, good words

Pleasure of most companys they are honest crooks when it come to piracy.

[David Bethel]

I've gone by this as it seems legit. -David

 

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

[Se7en]

Slippery subject!

 

Your releasing under the GPL? Why may i ask (the GPL is ``all about releasing source code'' so to speak; there are different versions...you would have to read them)? I mean what are your intension's; to make money, cover your butt, security, fame, what?

 

I dont license my Autolisp code but if i did it would be the same as all my other code; a slightly modified BSD license.

 

Quick cut and paste:

Copyright ©2008-2009

All rights reserved.

 

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without

modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions

are met:

 

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright

notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright

notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in

the documentation and/or other materials provided with the

distribution.

 

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT

LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS

FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE

COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,

INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING,

BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS

OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED

AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY,

OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF

THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH

DAMAGE.

 

As far as posted code goes, you may want to check with the forum Administrator because any code posted here may be blanketed by a Copyright (s)he set.

 

I worked at a company that tried to get a hold of my AutoLisp code once. I ended up using some home spun traps and methods. I even used some `big-boy toys' (some cryptographic techniques and tools) to stop them...it was more of a game to me then it was actually protection. I can point you in a few areas if your interested in some of the basics. Cool stuff.

 

Anyways, like i said, this can be a very slippery slope. Be careful.

[Se7en]

Oh and i forgot to mention that you can take a free course on Copyright law.

 

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and-Computer-Science/6-912January--IAP--2006/CourseHome/index.htm

[The Buzzard]

As mentioned in the AutoLisp Archive, Terms of Use section.

 

http://www.cadtutor.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1397

[Se7en]

Oh boy?!

I hope no one tried to sell an application for anything other then for `transfer' or `warranty' reasons they developed from code they used which was posted here. ...I dont like the GPL. Its a legal virus.

 

I dont want to release under the GPL. I wonder if we can get the Admin to modify that to say something "or an licence issued by author" or something?

[The Buzzard]

Oh boy?!

I hope no one tried to sell an application for anything other then for `transfer' or `warranty' reasons they developed from code they used which was posted here. ...I dont like the GPL. Its a legal virus.

 

I dont want to release under the GPL. I wonder if we can get the Admin to modify that to say something "or an licence issued by author" or something?

 

I think that was done to cover the forum since people will be using routines from this site and the forum would have no control of how they get used. As far as I am concerned I will put out a code for other to use or learn from. I do not sell codes. This method of licence allow the other parties to edit the code to suit them as long as they keep the header in tact. The revision info would then need to be indicated by the additional author(s). Even if no headers were supplied I think the licence would still apply to cover the site.

[Se7en]

I think that was done to cover the forum since people will be using routines from this site and the forum would have no control of how they get used. As far as I am concerned I will put out a code for other to use or learn from. I do not sell codes. This method of licence allow the other parties to edit the code to suit them as long as they keep the header in tact. The revision info would then need to be indicated by the additional author(s). Even if no headers were supplied I think the licence would still apply to cover the site.

 

Nope.

 

Re-read the GPL v2 because it not only dictates that they need to keep the header intact but it also states how they can use the code. And that is something i will not do! I give my code away and i do not dictate how they have to use it. You maybe thinking of the BSD license.

 

This site blanking code in the GPL would give this site and the authors the control not the user.

[The Buzzard]

Nope.

 

Re-read the GPL v2 because it not only dictates that they need to keep the header intact but it also states how they can use the code. And that is something i will not do! I give my code away and i do not dictate how they have to use it. You maybe thinking of the BSD license.

 

This site blanking code in the GPL would give this site and the authors the control not the user.

 

 

Not sure about V2, But I think it allowed in V3.

[Se7en]

But the link you provided says: version 2 unless you specify otherwise. I want to GIVE my code away with no restrictions (other then to keep the header) that's why i use the BSD licence.

[Lee Mac]

Buzzard, just curious, why don't you just edit your post, instead of double/triple/quadruple posting?

[The Buzzard]

Buzzard, just curious, why don't you just edit your post, instead of double/triple/quadruple posting?

 

Most all pertain to different descriptions. I do not want to get them confused. Also I am finding some of this as I go along. It is very interesting to say the least. If you want me to combine them into one post, Then this is not a problem?

[Lee Mac]

Most all pertain to different descriptions. I do not want to get them confused. Also I am finding some of this as I go along. It is very interesting to say the least. If you want me to combine them into on post, Then this is not a problem?

 

Do as you will, I was just curious

[The Buzzard]

Do as you will, I was just curious

 

But the link you provided says: version 2 unless you specify otherwise. I want to GIVE my code away with no restrictions (other then to keep the header) that's why i use the BSD licence.

http://www.cadtutor.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1397

 

The terms of use section may be out of date or intentional.

Not sure?

I use V3 or higher as mentioned in my codes.

 

 

The AutoLISP routines are free software; you can redistribute them and/or modify them under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

 

 

It does mention (at your option) any later version.

 

I found this on Wikipedia about the BSD and it does sound much better than GNU. This seems the way to go. I need to read more about it to be sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses

 

 

BSD Licenses Versus the GPL

 

This link explains some of the differences between BSD & GPL.

Very informative.

 

http://www.linfo.org/bsdlicense.html