I'd be interested in what a more legal understanding is, but for
anything that I post that includes source code, it's my understanding
that you can go and do whatever you want with it. Include it in other
products, yadda yadda. Basically if I don't include licensing terms I'm
giving you whatever terms you want. If you went and sold my code I'd be
pissed and I'd try to go directly to whoever you sold it to and tell
them that it's free. But if you use my code in some commercial project,
more power to you.
This probably isn't the "correct" way of viewing it, and it's more
likely closer to the "if I don't include a license then it's still
protected" model in some way or another. But often I'm too lazy to
include a licensing block, or more accurately, I'm too lazy to go out
and research what the right license is for "give this code away".
So for me personally, if there's no licensing information in my code
that means I don't care what you do. If I don't want you to use the
source code I won't release it.
Doug
engkee wrote:
I have to commend you all for posting a lot of wonderful components
and extensions to Flex... eg. Ely's calendar, Doug and Jason's tab
navigator extensions, Ben and Trey's reflection effect, Alex's
distortion effect, just to name a few.
Unfortunately, in these day and age, I would have to ask... am I
allowed to incorporate those wonderful works in commercial products?
Am I even allowed to look at the source code, if I work for a company
producing commercial software, without violating some IP issues.
Most of them are not explicitly associated with any specific
licensing terms.
Sure would be nice if there could be some standard practice of
associating these works with a common license, eg. the Creative
Commons (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/>)
Maybe there already is some presumed license or disclaimer
for "published" works. If so, please send a pointer.
Just a thought.
-Engkee
