revOnline and Open Source

[Mike Kerner]

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_wilcox at 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 <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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
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."