> Would you make the same claim of ownership upon the works of a > spanish poet simply because you paid someone to teach you a foreign > language?
Yes, I wondered about copyright of code compared to poetry, prose etc. Yes, I am respectful of peoples intellectual efforts. BUT! English is in the public domain .... AFL is owned by AmiBroker? I doubt if anyone can make it stick that I can't use AFL to write anything I want to write. I imagine it is an argument that rages between and amongst programmers (individual and corporate). brian_z -- In [email protected], "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > In fact I find the idea of copyrighting AFL somewhat > ridiculous..... > > Tomasz created the language and I purchased the right to use it > when > > I bought AB.... all of it, in any way I see fit. > > AFL is simply a medium of expression, just as any spoken language is. > > Would you make the same claim of ownership upon the works of a > spanish poet simply because you paid someone to teach you a foreign > language? > > You are free to compose your own works, and to reap the personal > rewards from sharing them. However, that does not give you any claim > to the works of anyone else. > > Mike > > --- In [email protected], "brian_z111" <brian_z111@> wrote: > > > > > I think that the larger question is protection of AFL's. > > > Anyway, I'd be interested in others thoughts on this issue. > > > > Thanks for raising the issue ... best to have an open discussion. > > > > I am offended by the idea of copyrighting AFL code. > > > > I like Howard, and I quite like his book, but I didn't like the > fact > > that he tried to claim copyright of the code contained in it. > > > > In fact I find the idea of copyrighting AFL somewhat > ridiculous..... > > Tomasz created the language and I purchased the right to use it > when > > I bought AB.... all of it, in any way I see fit. > > > > I am happy to share, for free, any code that I have 'written' if I > > feel is worthwhile and that I have the time to present it in a > > reasonable way. > > > > I think you will have a problem copyrighting code because you can't > > be certain that I haven't already written anything you may write, > or > > claim to have written, and have it stored on my computer. > > Perhaps someone broke into my computer, stole the code and gave it > to > > you .... I might have to sue you if you claim it is your proprietry > > code. > > > > I don't have a problem with commercial activity though and I am > happy > > to consider purchasing plugins, books, training, financial advice > > etc ... as long as the business is done at another site and only > > referenced, via link, from this forum. > > > > > > Trading knowledge is another matter ... I would sell my trading > > ideas, if it suited me, and I would attempt to copyright the > methods > > (once again that would be difficult to do) but the code I use to > > express, or implement those ideas can't and/or shouldn't be > > copyrighted IMO. > > > > > > Re conflict of commercial/personal interests: > > > > I have experienced conflicting forces in this area. > > > > When I wrote for the UKB, and when I was considering setting up > > another site for AB users, I did have to weigh up the benefit to > > other users against the fact that I was essentially working for AB > > for free and building an valueable commercial asset for AmiBroker. > > > > I still feel that way, even with this forum ... to me it is a trade > > off between the desire to help others, and share trading friendship > > with them, while at the same time realising it is essentially an AB > > support desk and marketing arm. > > > > brian_z > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "bruce1r" <brucer@> wrote: > > > > > > Progster - > > > > > > Your response addressed DLL's and made good points about > > intellectual > > > property, but IMO you might have missed a point and been a little > > off > > > the larger target. > > > > > > I think that the larger question is protection of AFL's. This is > > > something that Howard Bandy and I discussed with Tomasz at the > > > conference in Feb. I'm going to delve into it a little here > > because I > > > think that it is time to air it again, then I'll offer a quick > point > > > about DLL's. > > > > > > Many have AFL's (trading systems, AND utilities) that they would > > > release if they could protect them. There are two reasons for > > > protecting the source - one obvious and one not so obvious - > > > > > > 1. To charge for the code and for the intellectual property. The > > > market will decide if the price is reasonable or not. > > > > > > 2. To protect the source. Many times others will mod the source > and > > > then tie up author's time with questions about how the original > > > software worked OR why the modified software doesn't work. This > is > > a > > > real problem. I have released a fair amount of AB code in another > > > venue and can relate this problem firsthand. > > > > > > My impression is that Tomasz is reluctant to incorporate AFL > > > protection for a couple of reasons. I won't try to speak for > him, > > but > > > I think that one of his reasons is that he feels that protected > code > > > that possibly had a charge would impede the sharing of code. To > > that > > > all that I can ask is - how much is not now being released because > > > this facility doesn't exist. Howard and I and others have tried > to > > > emphasize this. > > > > > > Now to DLL's. Certainly code can be placed in a DLL to hide it. > It > > > is also fairly easy to protect it. It is just a pain and a > > > productivity hit to convert AFL to a DLL just to protect it. And > in > > > the end, any protection can be broken by a determined hacker. > > > Protection tends to fall into two categories - > > > > > > 1. Wrappers for EXE's and DLL's that implement keyed protection > for > > > existing binaries and require no changes. The protection may or > may > > > not be machine unique. For example, ASPROTECT > > > > > > 2. Embedded protection calls that require changes to the app. > > Several > > > libraries available - some open such as ACTIVELOCK > > > > > > Anyway, I'd be interested in others thoughts on this issue. > > > > > > -- Bruce R > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "progster01" <progster@> wrote: > > > > > > > > The discussion so far on "Why so few?" DLLs seems pretty much > > > > on-target to me. > > > > > > > > I would add: > > > > > > > > Ability to program a non-trivial DLL is a marketable skill that > > takes > > > > a long time to develop. > > > > > > > > There are certainly a number of fine examples of free > > contribution to > > > > the AB community in the DLL area (e.g. RMath, for one). > > > > > > > > One can only feel gratitude and appreciation for such "above and > > > > beyond" contributions. > > > > > > > > However, capable DLL authors have the same 24/7/365 limitations > as > > > > everyone else, and must confront a simple choice about > how/where > > to > > > > spend their time and effort: getting paid, or not getting paid. > > > > > > > > Since DLL writing is (almost) platform agnostic, DLL writers in > > the > > > > trading area will have a tendency to code for platforms that > > provide > > > > built-in support for locking a DLL to a customer or software ID. > > > > > > > > I would predict that such "commercializing" integration > features > > would > > > > result in a distinct increase in the number of commercial DLLs > > > > available for AB. > > > > > > > > > >
