ZZ. Heard of Copyleft? GNU saw what is needed, invented a very strong legal condition for all their software, well ahead of its time. You should be pleased with that. Check out with google.
--- In [email protected], "brian_z111" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Do you still remember the rise of the phoenix? > > No, didn't know that one but I like it .... it's a great story, > thanks. > > My view is that 'copyright' is harder than ever to enforce in the IT > age ... companies should go with the flow ... what they lose on the > swing they can gain on the roundabout ... many don't seem to > understand the new demographic even when is shoved in their facebook. > > > example: > > IMO instead of fighting file swapping music companies should get on > the bandwagon and release new bands at the garage level via youtube > etc ... margins on CD are very low anyway ... development costs and > risks are slashed on the net ... if the band ends up on a gazillion > cell phones then tour with them and make the money from concerts and > tee shirts etc. > > There are more ways than ever for talented hard working people to get > paid on the net ... why fight over old turf that the kids don't want > anyway. > > brian_z > > > --- In [email protected], "Paul Ho" <paul.tsho@> wrote: > > > > ZZ, > > Do you still remember the rise of the phoenix? > > Not the bird, but phoenix bios > > When the PC was first created, IBM bios - heavily copyrighted, was > > successfully re-engineered by a very little known company. IBM > didnt > > succeed in stopping phoenix, because phoenix re-engineering team > > consist of two sub-team, team 1 is allowed to see the bios, and its > > task is to re-engineered the specifications of the bios from the > > source. team two never saw the source codes, but develop it version > > of the bios completely from the specs, Hence the birth of the > modern > > personal computing era. > > You can never patent or copyright ideas. only implementation of > > ideas, translating from pseudo code to actual source is not > copying, > > there are a lot of creativity involved. > > > > --- In [email protected], "brian_z111" <brian_z111@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > 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" <sfclimbers@> 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
