Searching \ for '[OT]: piclist.com' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devices.htm?key=pic
Search entire site for: 'piclist.com'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: piclist.com'
2001\06\22@151130 by jamesnewton

face picon face
1. If you have a problem with me, TALK TO ME. Not the entire list.

2. If you bothered to read the signup form, you would know that the phone
number is not required for archive access.

3. If you don't want your stuff listed on the site, let me know and I will
remove it right now... from the FAQ. But the stuff you posted to the
PICList, a PUBLIC forum, is in the PUBLIC domain and you have no right to
restrict its resale or use whether you "gave" permission or not. It is OWNED
BY THE PUBLIC. Ask your lawyer.

4. When you change the topic, please change the topic tag.

Does that make you happy now Bob? If not, what can I do to improve your
attitude?

---
James Newton (PICList Admin #3)
spam_OUTjamesnewtonTakeThisOuTspampiclist.com 1-619-652-0593
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com or .org

{Original Message removed}

2001\06\22@153645 by Dan Michaels

flavicon
face
>
>3. If you don't want your stuff listed on the site, let me know and I will
>remove it right now... from the FAQ. But the stuff you posted to the
>PICList, a PUBLIC forum, is in the PUBLIC domain and you have no right to
>restrict its resale or use whether you "gave" permission or not. It is OWNED
>BY THE PUBLIC. Ask your lawyer.
>

1 - Can the public legally "re-sell" public domain information for profit?

2 - Is a private organization the same as the public?

3 - Can the public legally re-sell information if Bob has a copyright
   notice attached to what he makes available to piclist?

4 - Should we start posting things to piclist with a little copyright
   notice on the bottom?

cheers,
- dan michaels
=====================
(c) Copyright 2001, and for time immemorial, Dan Michaels
**** Do NOT use without explicit authorization of the author ****

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\06\22@154459 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 12:10:45PM -0700, James Newton. Admin 3 wrote:

Well since it's out in the open let's discuss it.

> 1. If you have a problem with me, TALK TO ME. Not the entire list.

Agreed. A private discussion probably would have been better.

>
> 2. If you bothered to read the signup form, you would know that the phone
> number is not required for archive access.

A minor point to say the least.

>
> 3. If you don't want your stuff listed on the site, let me know and I will
> remove it right now... from the FAQ. But the stuff you posted to the
> PICList, a PUBLIC forum, is in the PUBLIC domain and you have no right to
> restrict its resale or use whether you "gave" permission or not. It is OWNED
> BY THE PUBLIC. Ask your lawyer.

Now hold on there partner! This is not correct. Anything anyone writes is
copyrighted work unless they explicitly renounce the right. It doesn't have to
have a copyright notice on it. It's certainly not in the public domain.
It's just that no one has had a beef about the collection and redistribution
of the information before.

In all honestsy you really do need to license all of the posts to redistribute
them.

>
> 4. When you change the topic, please change the topic tag.

Of course.

>
> Does that make you happy now Bob? If not, what can I do to improve your
> attitude?

Can't speak for Bob on that one. But I'm curious if anyone else has an
objection to James repackaging and possibly reselling the contents of the
list?

BAJ
>
> ---
> James Newton (PICList Admin #3)
> .....jamesnewtonKILLspamspam@spam@piclist.com 1-619-652-0593
> PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com or .org
>
> {Original Message removed}

2001\06\22@155148 by jamesnewton

face picon face
1. Of course! Ask Lindsey publications, Red Hat, etc...

2. The PICList is owned by Jory if it is owned by anyone and he made me a
list owner. But by the definition of public, the fact that anyone can join
and that anyone can read the posts makes it a public forum.

3. That is an interesting question and I would be interested in what any
legal PROFESSIONALS (not armchair lawyers) have to say about it.

4. You can choose to do as you please. If this is really an issue, I don't
think you should be participating in a public forum. You might accidentally
give away a "precious trade secret" while trying to help someone. By all
means, sit on what you know if it makes you feel "special" inside.

Just out of curiosity, why hasn't there been any objection to the other
archives? And has no one else realized that any of the lurkers on this list
could package and sell the archives without being up front and open about
it?

And finally, this is a moot point as I have never, and probably will never
sell archive content. I'm only interested in selling (at some future date)
the contents of the piclist.com FAQ's in book or CD form for a price that
covers the cost of the media. The internet access is now and always will be
absolutely free. As the form says.

---
James Newton (PICList Admin #3)
jamesnewtonspamKILLspampiclist.com 1-619-652-0593
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com or .org

{Original Message removed}

2001\06\22@162111 by Dan Michaels

flavicon
face
At 03:44 PM 6/22/01 -0400, you wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 12:10:45PM -0700, James Newton. Admin 3 wrote:
>
>Well since it's out in the open let's discuss it.
>
>> 1. If you have a problem with me, TALK TO ME. Not the entire list.
>
>Agreed. A private discussion probably would have been better.
..............>


Ummm - this is exactly the sort of thing that should be
discussed in the "public" forum - or is this not "our"
information?

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\06\22@162258 by Dale Botkin

flavicon
face
IANAL, but...

On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Dan Michaels wrote:

> 1 - Can the public legally "re-sell" public domain information for profit?

You betcha, that's what "public domain" means.  Of course "the public"
can't sell anything - who would get the money?  Public domain doesn't mean
free, it means "not owned exclusively by any person or entity".

If I'm wrong, there are a lot of Bible publishers in BIG TROUBLE.

> 2 - Is a private organization the same as the public?

If by that you mean can a private organization do the same as #1, well,
there is no way a "public" can sell anything.  It would have to be either
an individul or some other legal entity selling it, so yes.

> 3 - Can the public legally re-sell information if Bob has a copyright
>     notice attached to what he makes available to piclist?

Not that information.  Unless of course Bob has agreed to permit this.

> 4 - Should we start posting things to piclist with a little copyright
>     notice on the bottom?

I won't.  What you do is up to you.  If I don't want my code or ideas to
become public domain, I don' share them in a public forum.  I will try to
help out wherever possible and post code I have developed that I want to
share with the world.  If I post it to the PIClist, I don't have any
illusions that no one can swipe my idea and use it somewhere else.  What
does it matter to me if they use it in a book, or in a box they build for
a paying customer, or in their new IR-trigered dog door opener?

There is some really, really neat code I have come up with for customers
that no one but my customer and I will ever see...  that's life.  On the
other hand, there is some I wrote on my own and re-use in customer
applications, with the understanding that it's my code, not theirs.  Of
course, I have the luxury of being able to be very selective abot who
becomes a customer.

Dale
--
A train stops at a train station.  A bus stops at a bus station.
On my desk I have a workstation...

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\06\22@162713 by Dan Michaels

flavicon
face
James Newton wrote:
............
>
>4. You can choose to do as you please. If this is really an issue, I don't
>think you should be participating in a public forum. You might accidentally
>give away a "precious trade secret" while trying to help someone. By all
>means, sit on what you know if it makes you feel "special" inside.
>

James <--- is there really any place for this kind of talk on piclist?

[quick, someone call the moderator and ask "him"].

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\06\22@163127 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, James Newton. Admin 3 wrote:

> 1. If you have a problem with me, TALK TO ME. Not the entire list.

If I had a problem with YOU, I would. I wanted to hear what other
viewpoints there were on the piclist. I already know your opinion, you set
up the website the way you wanted it.

> 2. If you bothered to read the signup form, you would know that the phone
> number is not required for archive access.

I read plenty, and more than most people. It's so damn wordy it's real
easy to ignore, I'm sure some people do ignore it, the others run away in
disgust at your nosy policy.

> 3. If you don't want your stuff listed on the site, let me know and I will
> remove it right now... from the FAQ. But the stuff you posted to the

Oh, so it's opt-out?

> PICList, a PUBLIC forum, is in the PUBLIC domain and you have no right to
> restrict its resale or use whether you "gave" permission or not. It is OWNED
> BY THE PUBLIC. Ask your lawyer.

There are lots of things legal to do that are reprehensible. If you
packaged the piclist archive on a CD it would upset me greatly. First, if
you left email addresses on it, what a nice way for spammers to get names.
Second, if you pruned email address or names out of it, then there would
be no attribution for the information, hence no credit given.

PLEASE DO NOT MAKE A PICLIST ARCHIVE CD!

> 4. When you change the topic, please change the topic tag.

Sometimes it's useful to leave the tag the way it is for the first changed
post, but I'll make sure this one is correctly tagged.

> Does that make you happy now Bob? If not, what can I do to improve your
> attitude?

I'm happy with my attitude, and glad to get this out in the open.

(c)2001 Bob Blick

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\06\22@163541 by jamesnewton

face picon face
Copyright is one thing, implied license is another. Look at the welcome
message you received when you joined the list

 "Remember that the PICList is a public forum"

If you post to a public forum, you are implying that the forum is licensed
to re-distribute and archive the posts and that you are not violating
someone else's copyright by reproducing their work in your post.

http://www.ssrn.com/update/lsn/cyberspace/lessons/copyr06.html

posting to a public forum places what you post in the public domain and
licenses the forum to redistribute the work as it normally would.

I have no plans (as I have said) to sell the archive, and if I ever do, I'll
be up front about it. Which is more than you would get from most.

---
James Newton (PICList Admin #3)
.....jamesnewtonKILLspamspam.....piclist.com 1-619-652-0593
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com or .org

{Original Message removed}

2001\06\22@173652 by jamesnewton

face picon face
Forward it to Jory.

---
James Newton (PICList Admin #3)
EraseMEjamesnewtonspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTpiclist.com 1-619-652-0593
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com or .org

{Original Message removed}

2001\06\22@174108 by M. Adam Davis

flavicon
face
Dan Michaels wrote:

>
>1 - Can the public legally "re-sell" public domain information for profit?
>
Yes, in the context of quotes, with proper attribution.

>
>2 - Is a private organization the same as the public?
>
??  Not sure what this has to do with this discussion.  Private
organizations are not afforded as many rights as individuals, but
individuals don't have some rights afforded private organizations.

>
>3 - Can the public legally re-sell information if Bob has a copyright
>    notice attached to what he makes available to piclist?
>
If you make a statement in a public forum, and you only say
"copyright...." then we can still quote you on sites, since you haven't
made clear exactly what rights you are claiming, and it is assumed that
since it is in a public forum that you are going to allow 'fair use' as
applies to knowledge in the public domain, namely quoting, archiving,
and other such 'normal' operations for the forum you post in..  If,
however, you make a whole statement saying, "Copyright..., all rights
reserved, this may not be used or stored in any shape or form,
reproduction of all or any part no allowed, etc" then you could legally
go after those who choose not to comply with your rights, though I
suspect that the forum maintainers may choose to disallow your post if
it is their policy to keep an archive, or something else about the way
they run the forum is against your rights.

>4 - Should we start posting things to piclist with a little copyright
>    notice on the bottom?
>
You'd need to talk with a lawyer.  Even the most ironclad copyright
notice doesn't keep others from certian uses of your post when you post
publicly.

I suspect, for instance, that you'd have a hard time prosecuting me for
breaking up your message and essentially quoting it for a response.  I
didn't even leave the copyright intact! ;-)  This is normal list usage
(falls under fair use).  This, of course, also means that even if you
disallow archives of your messages, others may quote you and their
messages will be archived according to their desires.

There is a header most archiving systems will pay attention to that you
can insert into your messages.  Something like "X-NO-ARCHIVE=YES".  You
should ask the administrators of the archives if they pay attention to
these (they had better be), and if so you can at least enable it in your
posts.

-Adam

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\06\22@175536 by Stephen B Webb

flavicon
face
> Can't speak for Bob on that one. But I'm curious if anyone else has an
> objection to James repackaging and possibly reselling the contents of the
> list?

IANAL, so I can't really comment on what is leagal or not.

But, as far a how I feel about it?  When I first saw the message on the
PICList archive, the tone bothered me a bit.  As far as the actual
message, though, I don't think I object.  I guess I figured that any code
/ ideas that I posted to the list might be put to use by someone (why else
to post them?) and I fully expected that someone might make money off the
code.

$0.02

-Steve

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\06\22@180204 by jamesnewton

face picon face
I don't have any method in place to stop archival of posts based on
inclusion of copyright or X-NOARCHIVE, etc...

If it gets to that point, and no one will volunteer the time to add those
methods, I'll close the archive (make it not publicly accessible) or
unsubscribe the objectors as the list members feel appropriate.

Makes you wonder if it is worth it...

---
James Newton (PICList Admin #3)
jamesnewtonspamspam_OUTpiclist.com 1-619-652-0593
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com or .org

{Original Message removed}

2001\06\22@185946 by Bill Westfield

face picon face
   1 - Can the public legally "re-sell" public domain information for profit?

Yes.  Come on, half the requests here are for code aimed at some sort of
product that would be sold at a profit anyway.  Are you saying it's ok for
your code to be used there, but not (for example) published as a "best of
PICLIST" CD some day?  (Historically, this has been a big problem.  You want
to go and publish 10years worth of archive of some historically significant
or technically useful mailing list or newsgroup, and while PROBABLY everyone
would agree with this, you find it impossible to track down all the people
who hold implicit copyrights on their messages, and so on.  I would think
the idea of the PICLIST agreement is to make sure the public domain nature
of messages is well defined ahead of time.)


   2 - Is a private organization the same as the public?

WRT material "released to the public domain"?  Yep.  Once you release
something to the PD, anyone can do anything with it.


   3 - Can the public legally re-sell information if Bob has a copyright
       notice attached to what he makes available to piclist?

Probably not.  This sort of thing plays havoc with the hypothetical CD,
though.  There are all sorts of valuable historical documents held up in
limbo because of assorted concerns about privacy and ownership.  (for
instance, there are complete disk images of MIT's "public" ITS computer
systems containing assorted wonderful source code that are held up because
they also contain students' email and personal files...)


   4 - Should we start posting things to piclist with a little copyright
       notice on the bottom?

If you answer someone's question with a copyright'ed bit of source code that
you want to claim no one can use for profit, that's a bit useless.  If you
want to insert something like the gnu copyleft or the Berkeley agreement,
that'd be more useful, but the source and object files can get a bit messy
with all the multiple copyright notices involved.  I would say that if you
want to "publish" code and restrict the use to which it may be put, you
should put it on a web page that explains the restrictions and post the URL
to PICLIST instead.

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\06\22@193459 by Dan Michaels

flavicon
face
BillW wrote:


>    4 - Should we start posting things to piclist with a little copyright
>        notice on the bottom?
>
>If you answer someone's question with a copyright'ed bit of source code that
>you want to claim no one can use for profit, that's a bit useless.  If you
>want to insert something like the gnu copyleft or the Berkeley agreement,
>that'd be more useful, but the source and object files can get a bit messy
>with all the multiple copyright notices involved.  I would say that if you
>want to "publish" code and restrict the use to which it may be put, you
>should put it on a web page that explains the restrictions and post the URL
>to PICLIST instead.
>

Seems to me many pieces of code I see published in various venues
have a little piece of data attached - legalese to effect that
freedom is given for private use, but not "commercial" use.

Interesting philosophical question --> should I "give away"
work that I produce on "my own time" when I know other people
will turnaround and "sell it" for profit?

Funny how this same discussion comes up about every 2 weeks around
here.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\06\22@195820 by Bill Westfield

face picon face
   Seems to me many pieces of code I see published in various venues
   have a little piece of data attached - legalese to effect that
   freedom is given for private use, but not "commercial" use.

This can make sense for whole programs, but it's pretty meaningless for
code snippets or algorithm discussions, IMO.


   Interesting philosophical question --> should I "give away"
   work that I produce on "my own time" when I know other people
   will turnaround and "sell it" for profit?

Yes.  The theory is that you get back more overall value than you
contribute.  That's what makes it a forum.  That's what "open source" is
all about.  Shared pain is lessened, shared joy is increased, yadda,
yadda...  There's an awful lot more to selling code for profit than just
writing it, stuff that programmers are likely to find unpleasant.

Depending on If you're contributing much more than you're getting back,
(try to) teach a seminar and get paid for it!  (Hmm.  Presuming things like
the PIC Masters class hand out some code snippets, exactly how are those
marked with respect to reuse?)

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\06\22@200821 by Dan Michaels

flavicon
face
BillW wrote:
>    Seems to me many pieces of code I see published in various venues
>    have a little piece of data attached - legalese to effect that
>    freedom is given for private use, but not "commercial" use.
>
>This can make sense for whole programs, but it's pretty meaningless for
>code snippets or algorithm discussions, IMO.
>

of course.
=================

{Quote hidden}

Sure, I'll buy this - but the shared pain would of course be lessened
even more if the sellers would credit the authors fairly, and share the
profits - don't you think? :).

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\06\22@201651 by Andrew Warren
flavicon
face
William Chops Westfield <@spam@billwKILLspamspamcisco.com> wrote:

> Hmm.  Presuming things like the PIC Masters class hand out some
> code snippets, exactly how are those marked with respect to reuse?

Bill:

When I taught the "PIC Tips and Tricks" class at the Microchip
Masters Conference a couple years ago, the code snippets I handed out
were free to reuse for any purpose.

The snippets that I'd written were totally free of encumbrances;
snippets written by Scott Dattalo, John Payson, or Dmitry were free
so long as authorship credit was included.  Of course, I asked for
and received explicit permission from those three gentlemen before I
publicized their code in the Masters class, even though it had all
been previously posted on a public forum.

-Andy


=== Andrew Warren --- KILLspamaiwKILLspamspamcypress.com
=== IPD Systems Engineering, CYSD
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation
===
=== Opinions expressed above do not
=== necessarily represent those of
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\06\22@223707 by Douglas Wood

picon face
Er... "technically", Bob, if your cannot use an actual Circle-C, just use
"Copyright 2000 Bob Blick". "(c)" is not legally binding...

Sorry, I'll go back to sleep now...

Douglas Wood
Software Engineer
RemoveMEdbwoodTakeThisOuTspamkc.rr.com

Home of the EPICIS Development System for the PIC and SX
http://epicis.piclist.com

{Original Message removed}

2001\06\23@033355 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
James Newton. Admin 3 wrote:
>
> I don't have any method in place to stop archival of posts based on
> inclusion of copyright or X-NOARCHIVE, etc...
>
> If it gets to that point, and no one will volunteer the time to add those
> methods, I'll close the archive (make it not publicly accessible) or
> unsubscribe the objectors as the list members feel appropriate.
>
> Makes you wonder if it is worth it...


Don't get disheartened James. I imagine the majority
of people on the list really appreciate the many hours
you put in (without pay!) and what you have achieved.

I am member of a few public forums, and it is a very
obvious reality that anything that you post to a public
forum is "out there". Hundreds of people read it, some
save it to their harddrive, some email it to friends,
etc. Unless you are prepared for the entire world to
be able to read it for the rest of eternity then don't
post it.

As for someone selling my posts and making money
from my efforts helping another person, I can understand
why many piclist people would be upset about that.
If you ever do that I think it would need to be handled
very carefully.

Re the piclist.com form, I am not "properly" subscribed
to piclist.com facilities as I didn't like the form
either, too many places on the net are way too invasive
and the public are getting sick of it.
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\06\23@035102 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
> Sure, I'll buy this - but the shared pain would of course be lessened
> even more if the sellers would credit the authors fairly, and share the
> profits - don't you think? :).

You seem to understand little about sharing (esp. pain). The natural way
of sharing pain is to have one who inflicts it and one who bears it (I
could be paraphrasing Ambrose Bierce ;-). Please do not draw any further
conclusions <g>.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\06\23@044246 by Bill Westfield

face picon face
   Sure, I'll buy this - but the shared pain would of course be lessened
   even more if the sellers would credit the authors fairly, and share the
   profits - don't you think? :).

You're assuming that the published code is resold in source form, in which
case of course proper credits are to be preferred.  Plagerism is still
plagerism even if the works copied aren't copyrighted/etc (try turning in an
english assignment copied from a famous long-out-of-copyright author :-) I'm
concerned that restrictions aimed at preventing someone from republishing
your source can also prevent anyone from including the code in object form
(ie in a physical product.)  PIC-based gadgets aren't well suited to listing
out a long series of credits, and (end-user) documentation tends to look
weird if it starts talking about random people who contributed bits and
pieces of the final product.

(Try actually shipping binaries based on modified gnu copyleft'ed source,
for instance.  What a can of worms (assuming your product itself isn't open
source.)

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\06\23@082005 by Walter Banks

picon face
"James Newton. Admin 3" wrote:

> Just out of curiosity, why hasn't there been any objection to the other
> archives? And has no one else realized that any of the lurkers on this list
> could package and sell the archives without being up front and open about
> it?
>
> I'm only interested in selling (at some future date)
> the contents of the piclist.com FAQ's in book or CD form...

Other lists and archives do package FAQ's and sell them with the individual
authors permissions. I have had 3 or 4 such requests in the last couple years.
Most publishing houses will insist that the permissions are on file before the
work proceeds.

Walter Banks

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\06\23@100148 by Russell McMahon

picon face
> 3 - Can the public legally re-sell information if Bob has a copyright
>     notice attached to what he makes available to piclist?


> 3. That is an interesting question and I would be interested in what any
> legal PROFESSIONALS (not armchair lawyers) have to say about it.


Armchair lawyer replies anyway.
My wife works for a publishing huse that summarises medical papers and
journals, and analyses the quality of the associated research.
Their synopses must use their own language to summarise the original
content, As long as they do not COPY the original the rereporting if the
informatio for sale is legitimate. (Ibcidentally, nobody has any objection
to this practice in this context - it is seen as a valuable way of getting
ionformation to people who could never manage to read or research all the
original papers.)

In the present context, I take this to imply that I can report on original
information and legally produce a version of it as long as there is no
copying of the original. ie the copyright is on the structure that the
information resides in and not the informatuin per se.
B, IMBW.




Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\06\23@104556 by Dan Michaels

flavicon
face
Roman wrote:

>
>As for someone selling my posts and making money
>from my efforts helping another person, I can understand
>why many piclist people would be upset about that.
>If you ever do that I think it would need to be handled
>very carefully.
>

amen.
============

>Re the piclist.com form, I am not "properly" subscribed
>to piclist.com facilities as I didn't like the form
>either, too many places on the net are way too invasive
>and the public are getting sick of it.

double amen.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\06\23@105223 by Dan Michaels

flavicon
face
Peter.P wrote:
>> Sure, I'll buy this - but the shared pain would of course be lessened
>> even more if the sellers would credit the authors fairly, and share the
>> profits - don't you think? :).
>
>You seem to understand little about sharing (esp. pain). The natural way
>of sharing pain is to have one who inflicts it and one who bears it (I
>could be paraphrasing Ambrose Bierce ;-). Please do not draw any further
>conclusions <g>.
>


PAIN, n.
An uncomfortable frame of mind that may have a physical basis in
something that is being done to the body, or may be purely mental,
caused by the good fortune of another.


[there is a certain symmetry here].

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\06\23@110458 by Russell McMahon

picon face
> Don't get disheartened James. I imagine the majority
> of people on the list really appreciate the many hours
> you put in (without pay!) and what you have achieved.


Amen! :-)

       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\06\23@143816 by James Newton. Admin 3

face picon face
Roman, for the 2,745th<GRIN> time, that form only requires an email address.
You gave that when you joined this list. The rest is OPTIONAL. How can that
be objectionable?

As I have said many times now, I have no immediate plans to sell anything. I
just put a note in the form as a way of being up front and honest that I
might do something with the archive in the future. Believe me, I have been
asked many time to produce a CD for people who have poor internet
connections and I have not done so because A) I don't have time B) I didn't
want to get into this "Its ok for me to post to a public forum, but you
can't recoup your costs in distributing it" argument.

At some point I DO intend to publish (at cost, not for profit) the contents
of the FAQ on a CD or zip for download and offline use.

It strikes me as a form of elitism that no one has a problem with people
reading the archive or site if they have internet access, but that those who
don't, or for whom it costs a great deal, or is very slow, publication in
other media is not allowed? The only difference is that other media cost
more up front. The one time cost of a big download, CD, or (worst case) a
book, is much more for the publisher (me) but it allows the user to avoid
the continuing cost of internet access over a period of time. The forum is
simply re-distributing the posts that were sent to it which is the ENTIRE
POINT OF HAVING A FORUM! That is where the legal "implied license" comes in.
I even volunteered to share any profits with major contributors. I don't
understand the objections.

And I really don't understand how all this "crediting the authors" stuff is
coming up. Have I EVER not credited someone for having written something on
the site? And the archive, or course, automatically credits whoever posts.
And I try very hard to make sure that the credit includes a link to what
ever (email, website, phone number, etc...) they want. That's why the
membership form includes all these fields. If you want people to be able to
contact you, you have a homepage on the site that lists whatever you have
entered on the form. If you login and post to the site via the forms at the
bottom of the page, it automatically credits you and links to your page so
that if your email or phone or webaddress changes, you only have to change
it in one place. If you want to hide, your member ID is the only thing that
gets posted and only I know who posted what. And, damn it, I will not let
people post directly to the site without having some record of who posted
what and some way to lock out people who try to post "bad things" like porno
links, foul language, accusations against others, etc... This was supposed
to be a way for people to share, get credit and make contacts, friends, or
find work on the net in a technical forum.

Nik, for example, has received 2 solid job offers now as a result of his
piclist posts and people finding him from the site. <GRIN>Olin has received
any number of enquiries that he could have just quoted his consulting rate
in response to and quite possibly gotten some work out of</GRIN> I know I
have made quite a bit on consulting that I would not have made if I had not
been active on this list. Speff, Sam, and others I know have also managed to
turn list activity into paying jobs.

I sort of thought that having ones name and contact info (email, website,
etc...) out there in a positive light was a good thing. The site gets butt
loads of hits and people search for keywords all the time. If you have
posted knowledgably on a keyword, you can probably expect to be contacted at
some point and that is an opportunity for you to connect, get involved or
quote rates. Its "A Good Thing" No? I can't believe that all my work trying
to build a community could be thrown back in my face as being "invasive" or
"nosey" If you don't want to disclose more than your email address (to me,
its not even public like it is on the piclist mailing list) you can still
access the archives and post to the site. As the text on the form makes very
clear, the other fields are OPTIONAL. FOR YOU ONLY IF YOU WANT TO USE THEM.
How hard can that be to get across? How can anyone object? Please explain
how I am failing to communicate this.

The thing that really blows me away is that several manufacturers (mostly
small shops) have contacted me via email and complained that I haven't
listed them on the site! As though that was my duty or something.

So if I quote you on the FAQ site, I get people complaining about their
copyrights and my "profits" <HAH!> from selling their "trade secrets" that
they posted to a public forum with a well know FAQ site that is totally free
to access via the internet and if I don't take the time to list them they
complain that I haven't "done a good job of representing the available
resources" despite the fact that the forms on the bottom of every page allow
anyone to post what they want directly to the site.

Man, I sure hope that I'm responding to an uninformed minority of the
PICList members, because if this is a majority.... I must really be out of
touch and you should find someone to admin and promote the list who better
understands what you want.

Please let me know:
spamBeGonejamesnewtonspamBeGonespampiclist.com?subject=JAMES_YOU_JUST_DONT_GET_IT> TakeThisOuTjamesnewtonEraseMEspamspam_OUTpiclist.com?subject=JAMES_YOU_ARE_DOING_THE_RIGHT_THING


James Newton, PICList Admin #3 ?
RemoveMEjamesnewtonspamTakeThisOuTpiclist.com
1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com

{Original Message removed}

2001\06\23@143821 by James Newton. Admin 3

face picon face
Who exactly ISN'T crediting the authors or sharing any profits with them?
General rabble right? If someone we know is doing this, I will be more than
happy to bar them from the list and site.

Are you trying to say that this has EVER happened on piclist.com or that I
have done this?

James Newton, PICList Admin #3
jamesnewtonEraseMEspam.....piclist.com
1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com

{Original Message removed}

2001\06\23@143825 by James Newton. Admin 3

face picon face
You want this "job" you can have it Bob. I'm sure you will do fine and show
a much more even and fair hand than I. But are you committed enough to the
list to do what it takes? Have you spent the time to build an FAQ? Setup and
Archive? Host it? Police the list? Bring constant unmarked Off Topics and
flame wars to almost a dead stop? I could sure use some help, are you
volunteering?

I don't know what Jack Boots are, but I have only been intolerant of
intolerance and I have been more lenient with people who have been valuable
(in terms of helping people) than I have with people how are infrequent or
unhelpful posters. Even very helpful members will get kicked off after I
give up on trying to get them to not be jerks on the list.

How in the heck did you get that I "own" the archive? I said it is in the
"PUBLIC domain" no one owns it. I've paid for the hard drive space and
internet access to host it. You wouldn't even have access to a complete
archive if I hadn't taken the time to build it up and make it available. How
can you be so ungrateful?

Who exactly have I been disrespectful to? And how? If you are going to
accuse me publicly, you should be able to present some evidence of my "wrong
doing" and if you want to smear my name in public I'd really appreciate some
precise examples of how I could have conducted myself better that I haven't
already admitted to. I'm not above admitting mistakes and I want to learn
how to do better.

At some point I DO intend to publish (at cost, not for profit) the contents
of the FAQ on a CD or zip for download and offline use.

It strikes me as a form of elitism that no one has a problem with people
reading the archive or site if they have internet access, but that those who
don't, or for whom it costs a great deal, or is very slow, publication in
other media is not allowed? The only difference is that other media cost
more up front. The one time cost of a big download, CD, or (worst case) a
book, is much more for the publisher (me) but it allows the user to avoid
the continuing cost of internet access over a period of time. The forum is
simply re-distributing the posts that were sent to it which is the ENTIRE
POINT OF HAVING A FORUM! That is where the legal "implied license" comes in.
I even volunteered to share any profits with major contributors. I don't
understand the objections.

James Newton, PICList Admin #3
EraseMEjamesnewtonspampiclist.com
1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com

{Original Message removed}

2001\06\23@145424 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 10:52 AM 6/23/01 -0700, you wrote:
>I know I
>have made quite a bit on consulting that I would not have made if I had not
>been active on this list. Speff, Sam, and others I know have also managed to
>turn list activity into paying jobs.

Right on. Don't think it isn't appreciated.

Good work, James, and for those that don't like the character he imparts
to the list, well, there's always anything-goes swamp of USENET. Or start
your own group, there are free places to do it (good luck in getting the
critical mass(mind) of people that PICLIST has, though).

I'd rather any ideas we have submitted for public consideration were
made available with attribution rather than used as background information
for a book, where the author would be under no obligation to give credit.
Whether that's on a $$ CD, subscription off a web site, or free off a
web site makes little difference.

Best regards,



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
RemoveMEspeffEraseMEspamEraseMEinterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com
Contributions invited->The AVR-gcc FAQ is at: http://www.bluecollarlinux.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\06\23@145835 by James Newton. Admin 3

face picon face
Robert, it is "Implied License" not Copyright. The known purpose of a public
forum is to redistribute the posts to the public. There are no "PIClist
owners" other than Jory, the people who control the allocation of resources
of the machine mitvma.mit.edu, and the good members of the list. Why?
Because "he who can destroy a thing, owns a thing." If Jory says "no more
piclist" or MIT says "no more piclist" or the members stop posting or
unsubscribe enmass, then there is no more piclist. If anyone incurs a real
cost in the distribution of the list to the public, they have every right to
try to recoup that cost. Profit may be a more unjustified point, but I'm not
interested in that anyway, except possibly as a way to encourage authors to
publish.

For the 2,798th time. I'm NOT TRYING TO GET RICH OFF THE PICLIST. Why is
that so hard to believe?

It strikes me as a form of elitism that no one has a problem with people
reading the archive or site if they have internet access, but that those who
don't, or for whom it costs a great deal, or is very slow, publication in
other media is not allowed? The only difference is that other media cost
more up front. The one time cost of a big download, CD, or (worst case) a
book, is much more for the publisher (me) but it allows the user to avoid
the continuing cost of internet access over a period of time. The forum is
simply re-distributing the posts that were sent to it which is the ENTIRE
POINT OF HAVING A FORUM! That is where the legal "implied license" comes in.
I even volunteered to share any profits with major contributors. I don't
understand the objections.

P.S. Please change the topic tag when you change the topic.

James Newton, PICList Admin #3
RemoveMEjamesnewtonspam_OUTspamKILLspampiclist.com
1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com


{Original Message removed}

2001\06\23@180506 by Dan Michaels

flavicon
face
James, I think what you cite below was a "philosophical"
discussion, not pointing blame.

OTOH, did you get a reading back from the moderator
vis-a-vis my question from yesterday?

- dan
=================


At 10:58 AM 6/23/01 -0700, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>{Original Message removed}

2001\06\23@203130 by Robert A. LaBudde

flavicon
face
At 11:57 AM 6/23/01 -0700, James wrote:
>Robert, it is "Implied License" not Copyright. The known purpose of a public
>forum is to redistribute the posts to the public. There are no "PIClist
>owners" other than Jory, the people who control the allocation of resources
>of the machine mitvma.mit.edu, and the good members of the list. Why?
>Because "he who can destroy a thing, owns a thing." If Jory says "no more

I don't believe this is a principle of law.

>piclist" or MIT says "no more piclist" or the members stop posting or
>unsubscribe enmass, then there is no more piclist. If anyone incurs a real
>cost in the distribution of the list to the public, they have every right to
>try to recoup that cost. Profit may be a more unjustified point, but I'm not
>interested in that anyway, except possibly as a way to encourage authors to
>publish.

I have no problem with your desire to recoup costs, or even make a business
from this list.

I just disagree with the legal viewpoints presented, and I still believe
you would be wise to include a notice with every list sign-up. You also
should get copyright releases from authors who posted preceding your notice.

A sample notice might be: "By joining Piclist, you agree the Piclist owners
have unconditional and unrestricted copyright releases for any
contributions or postings that you might make." That's pretty brief, but I
think it would work.

>For the 2,798th time. I'm NOT TRYING TO GET RICH OFF THE PICLIST. Why is
>that so hard to believe?

Doesn't bother me if you are. I don't think it would bother others either,
if the rules of engagement were defined beforehand.


{Quote hidden}

This "elitism" is called copyright law.

The "elitism" works as follows: Posting to PicList creates an "implied
license" to do what is customary and usual with the posting. People can
copy pieces from your archives or the postings and use them. This "elitism"
is called the "doctrine of fair use".

However, the "elitism" does not allow redistribution for commercial profit.
That remains the right of the copyright owner.

This is why you can copy a chapter from a book, but you are not allowed to
copy and sell multiple copies of the book.

In the same way, you can play music or sing a song at home. But you have to
pay a royalty if you perform in public for money.

I'm sorry you're angry about this, but I never attacked you or Piclist on
this issue. I was just trying to share my understanding of copyright law. I
still think you'd be wish to consult a patent attorney before investing in
a CD duplication business for Piclist, particularly as there apparently a
few people who might object.

This is all just my opinion of the law on this matter. I could be way off base.

PS. If you publish a CD-ROM of the website, count me in for a copy!

>P.S. Please change the topic tag when you change the topic.

You should have sent this message to the previous and antepenultimate
posters. I didn't change the topic!

================================================================
Robert A. LaBudde, PhD, PAS, Dpl. ACAFS  e-mail: EraseMEralspamspamspamBeGonelcfltd.com
Least Cost Formulations, Ltd.            URL: http://lcfltd.com/
824 Timberlake Drive                     Tel: 757-467-0954
Virginia Beach, VA 23464-3239            Fax: 757-467-2947

"Vere scire est per causas scire"
================================================================

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\06\24@035845 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
James Newton. Admin 3 wrote:
>
> Roman, for the 2,745th<GRIN> time, that form only requires an email address.
> You gave that when you joined this list. The rest is OPTIONAL. How can that
> be objectionable?

Thanks James, when I said "people are sick of the
invasiveness" I was referring to much of the internet,
not piclist.com.

I only went to the form once, and saw lots of scary
fields and pressed the "back" button. Might I suggest
a "split" form with just the email address/username
at the top, then a very obvious division with simple
note that all the rest under that is optional. I really
didn't take the time to examine the form, just a
glance which put me off. Probably this is partly
my fault for wanting everything NOW, and partly
your fault for trying to do too good a job and having
a long wordy form. It scares people. :o)

I'm always guilty of getting too wordy in my posts
and my web pages, for the same reason most of us do it,
we want to cover all the bases. Sometimes a couple of
simple sentences works better than lengthy texts
that cover everything.

I had trouble subscribing to the piclist the first
time, had to read a few pages of texts and FAQs just
to know the word to email in. I am trying to overhaul
my own webpages and un-word them a lot.


> At some point I DO intend to publish (at cost, not for profit) the contents
> of the FAQ on a CD or zip for download and offline use.

I have no problem with that. In my post I said
I could understand some people might though. I
always assume that anything I posted to a public
forum is presented by me to the whole world.


> Man, I sure hope that I'm responding to an uninformed minority of the
> PICList members, because if this is a majority.... I must really be out of
> touch and you should find someone to admin and promote the list who better
> understands what you want.
>
> Please let me know:
> RemoveMEjamesnewtonKILLspamspampiclist.com?subject=JAMES_YOU_JUST_DONT_GET_IT> > jamesnewtonSTOPspamspamspam_OUTpiclist.com?subject=JAMES_YOU_ARE_DOING_THE_RIGHT_THING


I placed my vote. Good work James, you are like
the Mother Theresa of PIC People! ;o)
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spamBeGonelistservSTOPspamspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\06\24@084923 by Patrick J

flavicon
face
Come on; If u send to a public list filled with proffessionals that do PIC
work for a living... U'd be pretty daft not to realise that part of your stuff
might end up in their projects. Good luck in getting the company they work
for to pay to a unknown person on some maillist...

Arn't we all on the list to share knowledge ? If you dont want to share,
get of the list. Or atleast dont post stuff u want to keep to yourself !
Sometimes refered to as 'common sense'

> I only went to the form once, and saw lots of scary fields
When I first saw all the fields on the form I too just closed it

> a long wordy form. It scares people. :o)
Yes, dead right. Basically just a design issue.
I had no idea nearly all fields are optional !

Not to bitch about James skills as webdesigner; but there are a few
minor details that could be improved upon ;-)

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email KILLspamlistservspamBeGonespammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\06\24@114143 by James Newton. Admin 3

face picon face
Please take the time to get a membership (only an email is required) and do
some work improving the site. You can take ownership of any unclaimed page
and edit it as your own page. Dave Cary has done this with several pages and
really improved the site.

If you have suggestions about how the rest of the site works, please let me
know. I guess I will be rearranging the membership form to make it more
clear what parts are required and what parts are not.

James Newton, PICList Admin #3
EraseMEjamesnewtonspamEraseMEpiclist.com
1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com

{Original Message removed}

2001\06\24@162024 by James Newton. Admin 3

face picon face
Ok, I screwed up and I have to apologize to Bob for posting this to the list
rather than privately to him. I'm not sure how I managed it, but this was
part of an offlist conversation that he and I were having and should have
gone back to him rather than to the list.

Despite our argument, Bob is a valuable member of the list and doesn't
deserve to have his private complaints to me or my heated responses made
public. I hope that he and I can continue to work out our differences off
list.

My apologies to the list for airing that publicly.

James Newton, PICList Admin #3
@spam@jamesnewton@spam@spamspam_OUTpiclist.com
1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com

{Original Message removed}

2001\06\24@174458 by Eric Smith

flavicon
face
"James Newton. Admin 3" <spamBeGonejamesnewtonspamKILLspamPICLIST.COM> writes:
> Copyright is one thing, implied license is another. Look at the welcome
> message you received when you joined the list
>
>   "Remember that the PICList is a public forum"
>
> If you post to a public forum, you are implying that the forum is licensed
> to re-distribute and archive the posts and that you are not violating
> someone else's copyright by reproducing their work in your post.

An implied license to redistribute the copyrighted material IN THAT FORUM
is one thing.  But claiming there is an implied license to use the material
in other ways goes a whole lot further.  Maybe that would work, maybe not.
IANAL, but I don't think there's enough case law in this area that anyone
can be certain one way or another.

> posting to a public forum places what you post in the public domain and
> licenses the forum to redistribute the work as it normally would.

"As it normally would" started out as only a mailing list, and then
some web-based archives were added.  Commercial sale is a LOT different
than "as it normally would" has been in the past, so I don't think you
can automatically assume that it is covered by the implied license.

> I have no plans (as I have said) to sell the archive, and if I ever do, I'll
> be up front about it. Which is more than you would get from most.

Quite true!

Best regards,
Eric Smith

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservspam_OUTspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\06\24@180213 by Douglas Wood

picon face
> "James Newton. Admin 3" <TakeThisOuTjamesnewton.....spamTakeThisOuTPICLIST.COM> writes:
> > Copyright is one thing, implied license is another. Look at the welcome
> > message you received when you joined the list
> >
> >   "Remember that the PICList is a public forum"


If that's true, then why the need to discuss PICLIST business off-list?
Problems that arrise in a public forum should discuss in that same forum.

Douglas Wood
Software Engineer
TakeThisOuTdbwoodKILLspamspamspamkc.rr.com

Home of the EPICIS Development System for the PIC and SX
http://epicis.piclist.com

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservspamRemoveMEmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\06\25@053044 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
good grief, go home for a quiet weekend, and come back to a loong
discussion. My apologies if my answer has already been covered.

>Public domain doesn't mean
>free, it means "not owned exclusively by any person or entity".

>If I'm wrong, there are a lot of Bible publishers in BIG TROUBLE.

You will find that the King James version (also known as the Authorised
version) is the only Bible you can copy with impunity. Any other English
translation is covered by copyright from its publisher. I am not sure how
this affects the public reading of these editions in church, but you may
find that this is allowed in the copyright notice, I have not gone looking
to see.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamspamBeGonemitvma.mit.edu



'[OT]: piclist.com'
2001\07\09@141634 by uter van ooijen & floortje hanneman
picon face
> Can't speak for Bob on that one. But I'm curious if anyone else has an
> objection to James repackaging and possibly reselling the contents of the
> list?

I would love it when all posting to the PIClist were either GPL or public
domain. That would free up a lot of problems when using hints, code snippets
and the like in commercial code, books etc. Maybe I should start by
including such a noticde in my signature?

Wouter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spamBeGonelistserv@spam@spamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\07\09@141638 by uter van ooijen & floortje hanneman

picon face
> A sample notice might be: "By joining Piclist, you agree the Piclist
owners
> have unconditional and unrestricted copyright releases for any
> contributions or postings that you might make." That's pretty brief, but I
> think it would work.

Make that "By joining Piclist, you agree that anyone can copy and distribute
your contributions to the Piclist, in any form, under any conditions, and
for any price (including free)." ?

Wouter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email TakeThisOuTlistservspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\07\09@161323 by Dale Botkin

flavicon
face
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, wouter van ooijen & floortje hanneman wrote:

> > Can't speak for Bob on that one. But I'm curious if anyone else has an
> > objection to James repackaging and possibly reselling the contents of the
> > list?
>
> I would love it when all posting to the PIClist were either GPL or public
> domain. That would free up a lot of problems when using hints, code snippets
> and the like in commercial code, books etc. Maybe I should start by
> including such a noticde in my signature?

Have you read the whole GPL? I'd never use it for anything.  Just my own
pesonal opinion, I think it goes too far.  If someone uses some of my code
that I have released, I don't CARE if they release their improvements or
modifications to it.  Sure, I'd like to know, but I won't force them to
disclose all.  The GPL has, I think, a reputation as this great enabling
share-with-the-world license that is somewhat undeserved.

OK, I'll pull on my fire-retardant suit now and grab a CO2 extinguisher...

Dale
--
A train stops at a train station.  A bus stops at a bus station.
On my desk I have a workstation...

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservEraseMEspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\07\09@171912 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 03:10:32PM -0500, Dale Botkin wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, wouter van ooijen & floortje hanneman wrote:
>
> > > Can't speak for Bob on that one. But I'm curious if anyone else has an
> > > objection to James repackaging and possibly reselling the contents of the
> > > list?
> >
> > I would love it when all posting to the PIClist were either GPL or public
> > domain. That would free up a lot of problems when using hints, code snippets
> > and the like in commercial code, books etc. Maybe I should start by
> > including such a noticde in my signature?
>
> Have you read the whole GPL? I'd never use it for anything.  Just my own
> pesonal opinion, I think it goes too far.  If someone uses some of my code
> that I have released, I don't CARE if they release their improvements or
> modifications to it.  Sure, I'd like to know, but I won't force them to
> disclose all.  The GPL has, I think, a reputation as this great enabling
> share-with-the-world license that is somewhat undeserved.

I think the only thing that untrue is this last statement. The reputation
as a share-with-the-world license is well deserved. Its true restriction
is exactly as you stated, source for code and its derivitives must be
shared if distributed. The force of that restriction causes a wide
proliferation.

BTW the license you're looking for Dale is the BSD license. It pretty much
has no restrictions on redistribution or modifications. It prefectly fits
your desire of a lack of control on deriviatives.

>
> OK, I'll pull on my fire-retardant suit now and grab a CO2 extinguisher...

No need. Your opinion is prefectly valid AFAIC and your facts are right
on the mark. The GPL is restrictive by enforcing sharing.

I still haven't found the license I want. GPL for noncommercial use, royalty
when packaged and sold. It doesn't exist and IANAL so I really can't write one.
So generally I mark my code for noncommerial use. Works so far.

BAJ

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservEraseMEspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\07\09@173126 by Dale Botkin

flavicon
face
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Byron A Jeff wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Maybe I was unclear on that point.  A lot of people I have listened to
seem to think the GPL is a perfect open-source license, and think
everyting should be GPL'd.  I disagree.

If I'm going to modify some open source software and release the source,
that's great.  if you're going to do it and release the source, that's
great too.  If you're going to spend thousands of hours and dollars
improving the software and sell it without the source, well, who am I to
argue with that?  I think you should be able to.  If I want the same
functionality or features or improvements, I am always free to do the same
thing you did -- on my time, with my money.

> BTW the license you're looking for Dale is the BSD license. It pretty much
> has no restrictions on redistribution or modifications. It prefectly fits
> your desire of a lack of control on deriviatives.

Yep, I've seen it/used it.  I like it a lot better.

> > OK, I'll pull on my fire-retardant suit now and grab a CO2 extinguisher...
>
> No need. Your opinion is prefectly valid AFAIC and your facts are right
> on the mark. The GPL is restrictive by enforcing sharing.
>
> I still haven't found the license I want. GPL for noncommercial use, royalty
> when packaged and sold. It doesn't exist and IANAL so I really can't write one.
> So generally I mark my code for noncommerial use. Works so far.

I call mine "free for noncommercial use" but include an email address for
those who want to license it for comercial use.  Works fine.  I figure if
it needs a lawyer's official stamp of fees to be good enough for the
prospective user, he'll probably swipe it anyway.  It's worked for me.

Dale
--
A train stops at a train station.  A bus stops at a bus station.
On my desk I have a workstation...

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email @spam@listservRemoveMEspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\07\09@182815 by Jeff DeMaagd

flavicon
face
----- Original Message -----
From: Dale Botkin <EraseMEdalespam@spam@BOTKIN.ORG>

> If I'm going to modify some open source software and release the source,
> that's great.  if you're going to do it and release the source, that's
> great too.  If you're going to spend thousands of hours and dollars
> improving the software and sell it without the source, well, who am I to
> argue with that?  I think you should be able to.  If I want the same
> functionality or features or improvements, I am always free to do the same
> thing you did -- on my time, with my money.

The thing is that you are building on and selling for profit someone else's
code that they probably gave away for free.  As I understand it, you CAN
make your own changes and not distribute the source, you first need to
negotiate permission from those that contributed to your code base as GPL
and give you a different licence.  Or you can write everything yourself from
scratch, or find a similar package with a different licence.

The writer may choose what they want to licence their code as and how they
want their code distributed.  Copyrights are named that for a reason.  If
you disagree with an open source licence you can often ask to negotiate a
different one or use someone else's code, but there's no way anyone force
licence wishes on anyone, but without a licence of some sort, you have
"stolen" code or whatnot.

> > BTW the license you're looking for Dale is the BSD license. It pretty
much
> > has no restrictions on redistribution or modifications. It prefectly
fits
> > your desire of a lack of control on deriviatives.
>
> Yep, I've seen it/used it.  I like it a lot better.

There's also the Lesser GPL or Library GPL to look at.  BSD has a problem
such that say, as I understand it, Apple can and has put their copyright on
the entire codebase regardless of how much they contributed to it.

> I call mine "free for noncommercial use" but include an email address for
> those who want to license it for comercial use.  Works fine.  I figure if
> it needs a lawyer's official stamp of fees to be good enough for the
> prospective user, he'll probably swipe it anyway.  It's worked for me.

There are always going to be those people that are going to swipe regardless
of licence.  That's not really the concern here.

Jeff
http://demaagd.com/anime/dvdbugs/

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email @spam@listservspam_OUTspam.....mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\07\09@192555 by Randy Glenn

picon face
Isn't that just the Darwin license? BSD itself has been around a hell of a
lot longer than Apple's UNIX-based MacOS X efforts.

-Randy Glenn

Sure, Windows is stable. As stable as the install CD,
balanced on the edge of a ruler. In high winds.
=================================================
    spamBeGonePICxpertEraseMEspamhome.com - PICxpertspamBeGonespamyahoo.com
PICxpert.com going away - use picxpert.dyndns.org
   Not that the site works yet, of course...
=================================================

{Original Message removed}

2001\07\11@164316 by uter van ooijen & floortje hanneman

picon face
> > I would love it when all posting to the PIClist were either GPL or
public
> > domain. That would free up a lot of problems when using hints, code
snippets
> > and the like in commercial code, books etc. Maybe I should start by
> > including such a noticde in my signature?

> Have you read the whole GPL? I'd never use it for anything.  Just my own
> pesonal opinion, I think it goes too far.  If someone uses some of my code
> that I have released, I don't CARE if they release their improvements or
> modifications to it.  Sure, I'd like to know, but I won't force them to
> disclose all.  The GPL has, I think, a reputation as this great enabling
> share-with-the-world license that is somewhat undeserved.

I did read it and I agree that GPL is rather dominant. My designs on my
website are LGPL for that reason. But for PICLIST postings 'public domain'
would be perfect.

Wouter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2001 , 2002 only
- Today
- New search...