Everybody is talking in terms of black and white but as with most things in the legal world it is never that simple. In the U.S., for non-license situations the question is whether usage falls under the Fair Use Act. As I recall from being hit up the side of the head with a 2 x 4 by various lawyers, the factors that come into play for Fair Use situations are (1) is it being used for commercial (not covered) or educational purposes (OK), (2) functional aspects of the code (not protected) versus their expression (protected), (3) percentage of the code copied, and (4) the effect of copying on the market (can't use someone's code to knock them out of the box).
Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 4:38 AM Subject: [amibroker] Re: Why are there so few? They most certainly can make it stick that you cannot write anything you want. Yahoo has patents on their search algorithms. You cannot duplicate that in AFL, or any other language, without paying them a licensing fee. Same goes for virtually every other commercial offering. That being said. There's nothing stopping you from obtaining the same or better results via a *different* algorithm (hello Google). You can always build a better mouse trap. You just can't assemble it using all the same parts put together in the same way. Mike --- In [email protected], "brian_z111" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ **** IMPORTANT **** This group is for the discussion between users only. This is *NOT* technical support channel. ********************* TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly to SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com ********************* For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG: http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/ For other support material please check also: http://www.amibroker.com/support.html ********************************* Yahoo! Groups Links ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.13/1828 - Release Date: 12/4/2008 8:05 AM
