Valid points. I'm unclear on the differences between copyright
and licensing when applied to software distributed at no cost over
the Internet.
It makes sense that the original publisher could claim copyright on
the code. Many blogs have a standard disclaimer in regards to content.
Many open source projects are distributed with some type of
license. Is that instead of copyright, or in addition to?
If someone is distributing sourceless Flex components, what would
the regulations be regarding that? The source could be copyright,
but it wouldn't apply to the binary file.
I don't have any answers, I guess.
At 05:01 PM 2/6/2007, you wrote:
If no license is specified, then I would assume they are in the
public domain and are available for free use.
I would suspect that's a dangerous assumption. I realize that if
you're posting code on a blog, than you can expect someone to
probably copy it, but in a court, I understand that any original
work belongs to the creator and to use it without permission
violates their copyrights. Look at it as me posting a beautiful
photo on my blog. That doesn't give people free use to take and
resell it. If you followed that through, I would be able to say
that anything I find on the internet (without some copyright notice)
I can use any way I see fit.
Check it out:
In the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States>United States,
copyright has been made automatic (in the style of the Berne
Convention) since <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1>March 1,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989>1989, which has had the effect of
making it appear to be more like a property right. Thus, as with
property, a copyright need not be granted or obtained through
official registration with any government office. Once an idea has
been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed
medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape or a
letter), the copyright holder is entitled to enforce his or her
exclusive rights. However, while a copyright need not be officially
registered for the copyright owner to begin exercising his exclusive rights
src:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#United_States_copyright_law>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#United_States_copyright_law
-Scott
On 2/6/07, Jeffry Houser
<<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If no license is specified, then I would assume they are in the
public domain and are available for free use.
At 03:31 PM 2/6/2007, you 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/)
Maybe there already is some presumed license or disclaimer
for "published" works. If so, please send a pointer.
Just a thought.
-Engkee
--
Jeffry Houser, Software Developer, Writer, Songwriter, Recording Engineer
AIM: Reboog711 | Phone: 1-203-379-0773
--
My Company: < http://www.dot-com-it.com>
My Podcast: < http://www.theflexshow.com>
My Blog: < http://www.jeffryhouser.com>
Connecticut Macromedia User Group: < http://www.ctmug.com>
--
: : ) Scott
--
Jeffry Houser, Software Developer, Writer, Songwriter, Recording Engineer
AIM: Reboog711 | Phone: 1-203-379-0773
--
My Company: <http://www.dot-com-it.com>
My Podcast: <http://www.theflexshow.com>
My Blog: <http://www.jeffryhouser.com>
Connecticut Macromedia User Group: <http://www.ctmug.com>
