This is just awful and freudian at the same time. I did a double-take when I read the subject this time, because for a second I thought it was "revOnline and Open Sores"
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Mark Wilcox <m_p_wil...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Richmond wrote: > > > If copyright is not explicitly stated then, surely, the thing is up for > grabs . . . > > That is very definitely not the case, although ideas can't be copyrighted > only a particular expression of an idea. So if you made a calculator app > that looked and/or worked exactly like mine, or at least extremely similar > then I may be able to sue you for copyright infringement. It's much easier > to prove infringement on visual copying than functional copying. > > I own a copy of "The Microbiblion" (published 1640), and were I to > believe that as it has no explicit copyright > > statement it was somehow protected by some implicit law I would be > flying in the face of the people who > > published it, when there were no copyright laws, and even the concept of > copyright did not exist. > > If it was published in 1640 then the copyright has definitely expired, > whether it existed at the time of creation or not. I believe books > currently get 70 years after the year of the author's death and computer > created works 50 years from the creation date (what about eBooks I > wonder?). After that time they are automatically public domain (in the UK) > - the rules differ slightly in different countries but have been adjusted > to be broadly the same in most of the developed world at least. > > > > ________________________________ > From: Richmond <richmondmathew...@gmail.com> > To: How to use LiveCode <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> > Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013, 16:30 > Subject: Re: revOnline and Open Source > > > On 08/01/2013 12:52 PM, Robert Mann wrote: > > So to sum it up : > > > > 1. Situation is a big mess :: all stacks published at revOnline are ab > > initio protected by copyright, which is in apparent conflict with the > > purpose of revOnline, which is to share code ideas and code. > > 2. Authors SHOULD specify the terms and license they agree upon > > 3. Clearly, taking a revOnline stack and distributing a commercial > version > > without the original author consent would be illegal. > > 4. Open Source Side effect : If authors do not do not care to specify an > > Open Source License, the stack cannot be simply modified and re-published > > with OS Livecode, as the second "user" will have no clean right to do so, > > except if he asks the original author for authorization or license to do > so. > > That should be cleared a minimum at the revOnline publishing stage > otherwise > > one could end up with a bunch of mixed spaghettis. > > > > 5. The protection of libraries remains to be clarified. > > > > ----------- > > Question :: what if I open a revOline stack, find some handlers and > > mechanism I like to use elsewhere, just copy part of the script from the > > editor, modify a little to suit my precise needs and environment. > > > > Copyright applies to a complete work and does and should not protect > > "ideas". The purpose of revOnline is to promote the communication of > "ideas" > > of implementations... so we are on a kind of frontier. > > > > So that practice of using revOnline as a source of inspiration should not > > break copyright rules??? > > > > > > What you are doing is showing how "dicky" the concept of copyright, unless > directly stated, seems > to be . . . > > . . . many years ago my father had the idea of making rubber overshoes for > horses, and wrote > about that idea to a friend of his, who said that the idea sounded fairly > daft . . . > > . . . almost simultaneously, my father discovered that somebody had had > the same idea, and later started marketing the things. There was absolutely > no question that my Dad's friend had done anything sneaky with > my Dad's idea; he hadn't. > > Now, I suppose my father could have wasted a lot of time, effort and money > trying to make a case for his getting some of the profits from the sales of > rubber overshoes for horses because he had had the idea, and written about > it to a friend, about a year before the other chap started making them. > > So: I really don't see how ideas can be copyrighted. > > I have pupils of mine making calculator apps with Livecode as part of > their progging classes with > me: I cannot see why (should one of those kids decide to market his/her > app) anybody should > have to start paying royalties to the first person who developed a > calculator app for a computer, or, > for that matter, the person who first marketed a handheld electronic > calculator. > > I show the kids I work with my (bust) Sinclair calculator [ > http://www.vintage-technology.info/pages/calculators/s/sinccamuni.jpg ] > (well it is good for a few laughs), explain its erstwhile functionality on > the whiteboard, > and off they go with their progging. I am not sending five pound notes to > Sir Clive Sinclair (even though I > admire tha man immensely). > > -------------------------------------------- > > If copyright is not explicitly stated then, surely, the thing is up for > grabs . . . > > I own a copy of "The Microbiblion" (published 1640), and were I to believe > that as it has no explicit copyright > statement it was somehow protected by some implicit law I would be flying > in the face of the people who > published it, when there were no copyright laws, and even the concept of > copyright did not exist. > > Richmond. > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > -- On the first day, God created the heavens and the Earth On the second day, God created the oceans. On the third day, God put the animals on hold for a few hours, and did a little diving. And God said, "This is good." _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode