revOnline and Open Source

[Mark Wilcox]

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 <richmondmathewson at gmail.com>
To: How to use LiveCode <use-livecode at 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 at lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode