PDA

View Full Version : Is this allowed?


Milad
03-05-2006, 09:40 AM
I had ported vBChat 2.3 to work with 3.5.x
Am I allowed to release it sinse ZT didn't responde to my PM?

Some people PM me and asking me to pass it to them with out releasing, does this violate the rules here?

I want to keep straight nowdays

thanks in advance

Ziki
03-05-2006, 10:05 AM
I don't think you can until he doesn't say.But if he doesn't respond maybe he doesn't want you to release it.

Marco van Herwaarden
03-05-2006, 11:19 AM
Any distribution of copyrighted code without the author permission is not allowed.

Corriewf
03-05-2006, 11:21 AM
I had ported vBChat 2.3 to work with 3.5.x
Am I allowed to release it sinse ZT didn't responde to my PM?

Some people PM me and asking me to pass it to them with out releasing, does this violate the rules here?

I want to keep straight nowdays

thanks in advance


Did you post in the original thread? How long has it been? Also redistribution would be illegal at this point, even in private.

.Tim
03-05-2006, 06:27 PM
I think it'd be nice if there were a feature when you post a hack thread you can check a box (maybe make it mandatory to say yes or no) saying whether or not you're okay with it being ported in the future. Would probably save a lot of time and prevent some of the issues like this one.

DJ XtAzY
03-05-2006, 07:40 PM
Zero Tolerance is unable to respond to ur pm becuase he currently got looking for a place to stay. The place he currently stayin now has no internet so hes unable to answers anyones pm or go online

Milad
03-05-2006, 08:30 PM
I had asked him since Jan, 30th 2006

Milad
03-15-2006, 09:38 PM
Many people demand for vBChat, what may occur if I release it without permission?

Developer
03-15-2006, 09:45 PM
it well delete, ZT Well get mad:(

Milad
03-15-2006, 09:46 PM
Will they delete what people want?

Nutz
03-15-2006, 10:03 PM
Its nothing to do with that like Marco Said:
Any distribution of copyrighted code without the author permission is not allowed.

Thanks,
Mat

Brad
03-16-2006, 09:54 AM
It would be deleted, disregarde for the site rules is also frowned upon..

Milad
03-16-2006, 01:22 PM
OK, just to check :)

Lea Verou
03-18-2006, 06:33 PM
I think it'd be nice if there were a feature when you post a hack thread you can check a box (maybe make it mandatory to say yes or no) saying whether or not you're okay with it being ported in the future. Would probably save a lot of time and prevent some of the issues like this one.
I second this ;)

tehste
03-18-2006, 06:43 PM
if you posted in the original thread it is not you doing the distributing. Just post in the original thread and zt can either forget it or re-release it - it is his hack afterall.

Code Monkey
03-18-2006, 07:58 PM
if you posted in the original thread it is not you doing the distributing. Just post in the original thread and zt can either forget it or re-release it - it is his hack afterall.

That's still copyright infringment if the creator doesn't allow changes or such.

AdminNation
03-18-2006, 10:53 PM
This is absurd. It would be one thing if ZT were here. But after disapearing several months ago his code is still totally off limits because he never thought to extend porting permissions in advance?

Andreas
03-18-2006, 11:02 PM
It is his code and he is totally free to decide what he want's to do with it.
We won't tolerate any copyright infirngement, be it in a new thread or posted in the original release thread - it would be deleted.

Erwin
03-18-2006, 11:03 PM
It may be absurd but it's the law. This site cannot allow illegal activity as it's owned by a corporation. If you don't like the way laws are written feel free to write to your local politician to complain.

Daniel
03-18-2006, 11:07 PM
Perhaps trying to contact him on his website:
http://gzevolution.net/forums/member.php?u=1

It looks like he's been there recently.

Milad
03-18-2006, 11:44 PM
I won't release it here. This is because ZT didn't respond to my PM.
I advise every one to install his shoutbox.
My members love it more that the vBChat, and I'm going to uninstall vBChat after a while.

Cap'n Steve
03-19-2006, 06:32 AM
It may be absurd but it's the law. This site cannot allow illegal activity as it's owned by a corporation. If you don't like the way laws are written feel free to write to your local politician to complain.

You could easily get around this by using one of several suggestions that have been mentioned. I also went through this and it's really frustrating to have a completely abandoned hack that no one can continue development on because someone stopped coming to this site for whatever reason.

Xenon
03-19-2006, 08:12 PM
I think it'd be nice if there were a feature when you post a hack thread you can check a box (maybe make it mandatory to say yes or no) saying whether or not you're okay with it being ported in the future. Would probably save a lot of time and prevent some of the issues like this one.

this is a good idea and something like this is already planned

.Tim
03-19-2006, 11:18 PM
this is a good idea and something like this is already planned

Sweet! :cool:

Code Monkey
03-20-2006, 12:36 AM
And of course, the same questions are going to get asked about hacks where the author has left and checked no.

Paul M
03-20-2006, 12:12 PM
More to the point, what will the default be ?

Xenon
03-20-2006, 08:16 PM
Well i cannot say too much right now, as it is not yet ready to be released, it will be a type of license system, where the author can choose which things apply to his hack, and he has to do so.

but as said things are not ready yet, so i cannot give exact details

AdminNation
03-22-2006, 10:16 PM
Well i cannot say too much right now, as it is not yet ready to be released, it will be a type of license system, where the author can choose which things apply to his hack, and he has to do so.

but as said things are not ready yet, so i cannot give exact details

Excellent. I know that EverythingvB had that before its demise, and quite frankly, its brilliant.

Thug
03-29-2006, 10:38 AM
a question what if someone created one from scratch total diff code and different name would that be allowed?
just asking

Developer
03-29-2006, 10:49 AM
yes...

Paul M
03-29-2006, 02:48 PM
a question what if someone created one from scratch total diff code and different name would that be allowed?
just askingYes.

Feckie (Roger)
03-29-2006, 04:06 PM
It is his code and he is totally free to decide what he wants to do with it.
We won't tolerate any copyright infringement, be it in a new thread or posted in the original release thread - it would be deleted.


Then would it not be a good idea that any FREE code, published on vBulletin.org. Be classed as open source. And allowed to be modified by anyone to improve it. Or are Coders so full of themselves that they must retain the copyright that they are not charging for.!!!!

Cap'n Steve
03-30-2006, 02:18 AM
There are good reasons besides ego to restrict other people releasing your code. I know I wouldn't want anyone releasing modified versions of my hacks because that would get confusing in a hurry.

SIINSI
04-29-2006, 05:01 PM
No offense but, you people are talking like someone is breaking a law. I'm sorry to say they are not... I'd say 90% of you do not actually copyright a thing. Just slapping the words "copyright" does not make it so. Copyrights need to be registered, if they aren't well, they are not copywritten. Pretty funny :)

creedmaniac
04-29-2006, 05:10 PM
No offense but, you people are talking like someone is breaking a law. I'm sorry to say they are not... I'd say 90% of you do not actually copyright a thing. Just slapping the words "copyright" does not make it so. Copyrights need to be registered, if they aren't well, they are not copywritten. Pretty funny :)

intellectual property is legally binding in a court of law... so you are wrong on that one...you don't have to register a copyright for it to be a legal copyright, simply stating that you are copyrighting something IS enough to hold up in court (at least in the US anyway)

Freesteyelz
04-29-2006, 10:47 PM
Just slapping the words "copyright" does not make it so. Copyrights need to be registered, if they aren't well, they are not copywritten. Pretty funny :)

Patents need to be registered, not copyrights. Once a work has been completed - just pressing "save" or "save as", let alone publishing it - it is considered copyrighted. Registering your work is optional and by doing so it may make the legal process smoother if you find the need to pursue action.

BTW...A work/site does not need the copyright notice for it to be copyrighted. ;)

Xtrato
04-29-2006, 11:45 PM
Not Really you can register Copyrights in the USA. You are given more protection and rights in the USA. In International Copyright laws (free/public) peoples online work is protected by things like GNU/GPL Copyright laws which you can read here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html And like Feckie said this is OPEN SOURCE. Laws for this change alot.

Code Monkey
04-29-2006, 11:46 PM
This is not open source. PHP is open source, anything I code here using it is not. Get your facts straight kids.

Kihon Kata
04-30-2006, 12:01 AM
That's interesting since he is on his own site everyday. ;) Or at least someone with his username is on there.

Zero Tolerance is unable to respond to ur pm becuase he currently got looking for a place to stay.

Smiry Kin's
04-30-2006, 12:04 AM
i say release a HOW TO - if you want to use it for 3.5. then im sure thats allowed.. your not chatting anything, your just helping..

Cky47
04-30-2006, 12:09 AM
For all the trouble I hear abotu this port, wouldnt it be easier to make a new one?

Study his original code, and make a new one that is twice as good. Remember though, I said study it, not copy it.

Daniel
04-30-2006, 12:49 AM
Or put out instructions on how we can do it ourselves... if that's allowed.

SupremeWeapon
04-30-2006, 02:31 AM
It may be absurd but it's the law. This site cannot allow illegal activity as it's owned by a corporation. If you don't like the way laws are written feel free to write to your local politician to complain.

actually by no US law is it illegal. and wouldnt hold up in any court. ZT has no actual owned copyrights to the code O_O


( You can check the copyright and patent ofices if you like, if it isnt there then by in no way is it against the law to distribute. )


and not one case of such has won in the court system.

Code Monkey
04-30-2006, 03:00 AM
actually by no US law is it illegal. and wouldnt hold up in any court. ZT has no actual owned copyrights to the code O_O


( You can check the copyright and patent ofices if you like, if it isnt there then by in no way is it against the law to distribute. )


and not one case of such has won in the court system.

Stop making stuff up to get what you want. The US has automatic copyright laws.

Paul M
04-30-2006, 10:56 AM
Then would it not be a good idea that any FREE code, published on vBulletin.org. Be classed as open source. And allowed to be modified by anyone to improve it. Or are Coders so full of themselves that they must retain the copyright that they are not charging for.!!!!Charging or free has no relevance, if someone wants to "improve" or modify my mods then they should seek permission.

However, I do think that the rules here should be changed to cover people who have clearly left the site (i.e. not logged in for at least nine months or more). In this case I think others should then be allowed to take over, or port, old abandoned hacks - but on the understanding that should the original person ever return, they can request it's withdrawal.

It is neither helpful or sensible for stuff that is wanted to be blocked forever when the person has clearly left the site.

TruthElixirX
04-30-2006, 01:12 PM
Charging or free has no relevance, if someone wants to "improve" or modify my mods then they should seek permission.

However, I do think that the rules here should be changed to cover people who have clearly left the site (i.e. not logged in for at least nine months or more). In this case I think others should then be allowed to take over, or port, old abandoned hacks - but on the understanding that should the original person ever return, they can request it's withdrawal.

It is neither helpful or sensible for stuff that is wanted to be blocked forever when the person has clearly left the site.
Or just implement the check box that was mentioned earlier. It would be a very little modification. I'm almost sure I could do it. Until we get this "license systm" implemented it would suffice.

But alas, it looks like anything around here takes ages to get approved and then ages to actually get implemented.

SupremeWeapon
04-30-2006, 01:17 PM
Stop making stuff up to get what you want. The US has automatic copyright laws.


erm no, again. you need an actual LICENSED copyright to claim anything.


you may research this fact if you like. Not ONE case where a NON LICENSED copyright has EVER won in the United states court system.

again if you donot believe me 99% of all court cases are a matter of public record. look them up.

Feckie (Roger)
04-30-2006, 01:54 PM
However, I do think that the rules here should be changed to cover people who have clearly left the site (i.e. not logged in for at least nine months or more). In this case I think others should then be allowed to take over, or port, old abandoned hacks - but on the understanding that should the original person ever return, they can request it's withdrawal.

It is neither helpful or sensible for stuff that is wanted to be blocked forever when the person has clearly left the site.


In Total Agreement ;)

Code Monkey
04-30-2006, 02:05 PM
erm no, again. you need an actual LICENSED copyright to claim anything.


you may research this fact if you like. Not ONE case where a NON LICENSED copyright has EVER won in the United states court system.

again if you donot believe me 99% of all court cases are a matter of public record. look them up.

That is a load of crap.

Gio~Logist
04-30-2006, 02:13 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_man's_copyright

Code Monkey
04-30-2006, 02:15 PM
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc


The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright.

Gio~Logist
04-30-2006, 02:35 PM
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc

Exactly.

Code Monkey
04-30-2006, 02:42 PM
After 46 flings around the Sun I have learned a few things. When folks tell you to do research and offer none, and when they use the term "99%". It's usually crap.

Feckie (Roger)
04-30-2006, 02:46 PM
The Easiest way to copyright written material is, to hard copy onto paper. Then post it to a Solicitor / Lawyer with instructions not to open but keep in safe.....

This Then Proves that you wrote it Date Timed By Post Mark..........

Code Monkey
04-30-2006, 02:51 PM
The Easiest way to copyright written material is, to hard copy onto paper. Then post it to a Solicitor / Lawyer with instructions not to open but keep in safe.....

This Then Proves that you wrote it Date Timed By Post Mark..........

So does forum publication as long as you don't have possible access to changing post dates. If I can show I released something at a certain past date on vb.org and it preceedes another claim, then that is valid proof. ;)

Publication is publication.

Feckie (Roger)
04-30-2006, 02:53 PM
So does forum publication as long as you don't have possible access to changing post dates. If I can show I released something at a certain past date on vb.org and it preceedes another claim, then that is valid proof. ;)

Publication is publication.


Correct

ronoxQ
04-30-2006, 03:09 PM
I had ported vBChat 2.3 to work with 3.5.x
Am I allowed to release it sinse ZT didn't responde to my PM?

Some people PM me and asking me to pass it to them with out releasing, does this violate the rules here?

I want to keep straight nowdays

thanks in advance

Don't know if anybody said this, but: ZT has been offline for a few months, since he's moving soon. I'd go to his site and post a topic there asking him, since that's the only place he'll be checking out now.

Code Monkey
04-30-2006, 03:30 PM
You guys also have the option of uninstalling whatever it is that is no longer working and move on. That's the best option IMO.

Freesteyelz
05-01-2006, 12:08 AM
After 46 flings around the Sun I have learned a few things.

I sure hope you have a mileage reward plan. :classic:

Bubble #5
05-12-2006, 07:45 AM
So does forum publication
Not trying to take sides but this has already been tried in the courts with Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service and they lost. Information that is kept in a database is not copyrightable unless the database is unique in design.

Boofo
05-12-2006, 08:47 AM
What's more unique than a vBulletin database? ;)

Bubble #5
05-12-2006, 03:38 PM
What's more unique than a vBulletin database?
Unique in design/use, not content ;)

PitchouneN64ngc
05-21-2006, 09:06 PM
Sorry for bumping this thread but i've a question about port permissions.

I've ported a vB 2 hack to vB 3.5 for my personal use, but if I want to release it here, and the original coder was not connected since July 2003, what are the possibilities?

Marco van Herwaarden
05-22-2006, 06:16 AM
Unfortunatly in cases like that, vbulltin.org don't hold the copyright to that code, so we can not decide if you can release your version of that code.

If considerable parts of your code are written by someone else, you will need to have permission.

PitchouneN64ngc
05-22-2006, 06:39 AM
Ok, so I can't never release it.

Thank you ;)

Milad
05-22-2006, 09:11 AM
Unfortunatly in cases like that, vbulltin.org don't hold the copyright to that code, so we can not decide if you can release your version of that code.

If considerable parts of your code are written by someone else, you will need to have permission.
But he can use it personally? cann't he?

Rich
05-22-2006, 10:58 AM
Yes, you can use any mod on this site for personal use. (At your own discretion.) You can also port every mod on this site over to 3.5 if you wanted to for your site, but you can't release it.

Ramsesx
05-22-2006, 11:58 AM
But he could make a tutorial how to need change a hack to work with 3.5.

Xenon
05-22-2006, 12:48 PM
well, yes he can post the modification into the supportthread for that hack

Ziki
05-22-2006, 01:26 PM
ZT is unactive here @ vb.org so I think he doesn't mind.Ask him via MSN

Paul M
05-22-2006, 02:12 PM
If it's vb2 hack then won't it have needed an extensive re-write to work with 3.5 anyway ? - so not really be using much of the original code ?

Milad
05-22-2006, 07:57 PM
well, yes he can post the modification into the supportthread for that hack
does this mean that I can post my port in the original thread?

Bubble #5
05-22-2006, 08:14 PM
does this mean that I can post my port in the original thread?
Isn't there a section in every hack thread dedicated to hack mods and add-ons? Why couldn't people just simply post their updated versions there, that way it's still in the original thread, everything is above board, and the original coder gets the proper acknowledgment.

I sure do like this bunny :bunny:

Guest190829
05-22-2006, 08:25 PM
Isn't there a section in every hack thread dedicated to hack mods and add-ons? Why couldn't people just simply post their updated versions there, that way it's still in the original thread, everything is above board, and the original coder gets the proper acknowledgment.

I sure do like this bunny :bunny:

Yes, but that section is for actual add-ons of major hacks. For instance vbadvance CMPS: there are alot of add-ons that act as modules to vBa CMPS. Also, only the author has permission to add hacks to that field.

Like Xenon said, you may post fixes/ports in the original hack thread, that way you aren't taking any credit of the actual hack.

Bubble #5
05-22-2006, 08:39 PM
Thanks for the clarification Danny :)

you may post fixes/ports in the original hack thread
Serves the same purpose really. As long as a link is provided in the original thread somewhere (for example; a post) that's fine. I suppose this way would be easier for everyone though. However it would be nice to have one central master thread posted somewhere in vB.org that people could subscribe to, where updates of this nature could be listed for those who wish to learn about them. Surely no one here expects every single member to read every old 2.0 hack thread each and everyday, just to see if someone has posted a new update for it. Having a 'update' thread somewhere in vB.org so that coders could post a link to the thread would make good sense :bunny:

Milad
05-22-2006, 08:41 PM
well, yes he can post the modification into the supportthread for that hack

Like Xenon said, you may post fixes/ports in the original hack thread, that way you aren't taking any credit of the actual hack.

I have posted my port

Guest190829
05-22-2006, 08:44 PM
Thanks for the clarification Danny :)


Serves the same purpose really. As long as a link is provided in the original thread somewhere (for example; a post) that's fine. I suppose this way would be easier for everyone though. However it would be nice to have one central master thread posted somewhere in vB.org that people could subscribe to, where updates of this nature could be listed for those who wish to learn about them. Surely no one here expects every single member to read every old 2.0 hack thread each and everyday, just to see if someone has posted a new update for it. Having a 'update' thread somewhere in vB.org so that coders could post a link to the thread would make good sense :bunny:

Yes, some centrialized section where updates could be posted seems like a good idea. The only issues is that who would have control over it? We can't have regular users be able to edit update sections, because that will allow abuse of the system. And also, giving the ability to the Authors won't help much because in situations like these...they are not around.

Bubble #5
05-22-2006, 08:58 PM
Yes, some centrialized section where updates could be posted seems like a good idea.
Thank you :)

The only issues is that who would have control over it?
It's just a thread, like any other thread. You wouldn't need a seperate forum category for something like this.

We can't have regular users be able to edit update sections, because that will allow abuse of the system.
See above :) It's just a thread that members could subscribe to for reference to future updates. For example; Milad could post in the thread I'm refering to with a post something like this:

"Anyone who wants an updated version of the old 2.0 hack called "blah-blah-blah" can find one by clicking this link to original thread. (insert link here)..."


Now anyone who has subscribed to this 'updated hack thread' would receive an e-mail with Milads post in it. If they wanted an update to that 2.0 hack then they could proceed further. If they don't, then they don't worry about it. It's just a thread that will notify members that an old unsupported 2.0 hack has a update available.

Paul M
05-22-2006, 09:42 PM
What's wrong with just creating a new thread as an add-on to the original - with links to the original saying this add-on is to convert xxxx to work on vb3.5. Then it's available in the 3.5 area where people can find it, and links back to the original, giving due credit to it.

Bubble #5
05-22-2006, 10:09 PM
What's wrong with just creating a new thread as an add-on to the original

Because no one would ever know that it was even there (see #4) ;)

1.) That would create a situation where there'd be a lot of random sorted threads (instead of one central master thread) each containing only one post and...

2.) No one would be subscribed to these 'seperate threads' (unless they were psychic) like they would be with a master thread. A lot of people don't visit here everyday, nor do they read the entire site each time they visit.

3.) Having a lot of separate threads would prevent a key feature of having a central master thread, that being to e-mail members when a new update is listed somewhere else in the forum. A single master thread would send out a new e-mail each time a new update was listed in the master thread.

4.) Every single member is not going to monitor or read every single old 2.0 -3.0 hack thread each and everyday, just to see if someone else has posted a new update for it. However, listing these updates in a master thread would announce these updates easily via e-mail for members who subscribed to the master list.

5.) Having one central master list would make it much easier for people to track down other updates for other hacks, they wouldn't even need to use the search engine, they would simply read the thread to learn about all listed updates.

:bunny:

Guest190829
05-22-2006, 10:14 PM
Thank you :)


It's just a thread, like any other thread. You wouldn't need a seperate forum category for something like this.


See above :) It's just a thread that members could subscribe to for reference to future updates. For example; Milad could post in the thread I'm refering to with a post something like this:

"Anyone who wants an updated version of the old 2.0 hack called "blah-blah-blah" can find one by clicking this link to original thread. (insert link here)..."


Now anyone who has subscribed to this 'updated hack thread' would receive an e-mail with Milads post in it. If they wanted an update to that 2.0 hack then they could proceed further. If they don't, then they don't worry about it. It's just a thread that will notify members that an old unsupported 2.0 hack has a update available.

I was thinking of terms of inside the specific hack thread, this way we wouldn't have one huge thread everytime some one makes an unofficial port of hack.

Bubble #5
05-22-2006, 10:25 PM
I was thinking of terms of inside the specific hack thread
Yes the actual port would be like that, but without a way for members to track these new ports no one would ever (or rarely) learn about them. The coder would simply add the port in the specific hack thread as you mentioned above, and then they'd post a link to it in the 'Master Port thread' so that other members could learn about the new port and actually find it.

peterska2
05-22-2006, 10:59 PM
Something like a 'permission to port' checkbox could be an idea. It would just depend then on if the author checks the box or not. Simply put, if the box is checked, then ports are ok, and if it isn't then they aren't. It would save a lot of confusion at the point of major vB upgrades.

Billspaintball
05-23-2006, 12:18 AM
Not trying to take sides but this has already been tried in the courts with Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service and they lost. Information that is kept in a database is not copyrightable unless the database is unique in design.However, since the actual code of the hack is a unique work it is covered under copywrite laws....

Shaliza
05-23-2006, 02:43 AM
I have a question:

I would never steal someone's code, but is it technically copyrighted or do they just say that for some sort of effect? Because I know certain people on some other board systems actually have protection on their code legally but some people act like every piece of code on here is actually copyrighted so that's why I'm wondering.

Freesteyelz
05-23-2006, 03:07 AM
I'd say many people use the copyright as an effect without knowing the meaning of it. Technically, the author's work is copyrighted as soon as it's drafted.

Billspaintball
05-23-2006, 04:29 AM
but is it technically copyrighted or do they just say that for some sort of effect?
When your produce some code you own the copywrite on that code by default, even if you dont mention anything about copywrite.

Despite the claims of some, this default copywrite is legally enforceable.

However, I would still advise that you list a copywrite notice in the code somewhere.

Boofo
05-23-2006, 04:47 AM
Damn! There goes my Bills PayPal hack down the drain. :(

Shaliza
05-23-2006, 10:34 AM
Well, I guess that's where a debate would star as some feel something like that isn't really copyrighted until you have the papers to prove it.

Thanks for answering!

Freesteyelz
05-23-2006, 10:45 AM
To set the record straight, no documentation of any sort needs to be provided for a work, such as a code, to be copyrighted.

Bubble #5
05-23-2006, 04:29 PM
since the actual code of the hack is a unique work it is covered under copywrite laws
That all depends on how that code is initially presented as reflected in the Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service case. All of the data in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service was also unique but it was ruled that it trumped the copyright law ;)

Billspaintball
05-24-2006, 01:20 AM
Damn! There goes my Bills PayPal hack down the drain. :(
Dont worry,
remember were all listing you in the credits now to save us support later :cool:

That all depends on how that code is initially presented as reflected in the Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service case. All of the data in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service was also unique but it was ruled that it trumped the copyright law ;)
Your talking about something very different to what we are discussing here.
All that happened there was copying publicly available information from someone elses public listings.
Its not relevant to using someone elses unique code at all.

See here for more detail on this case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service

Boofo
05-24-2006, 01:28 AM
Dont worry,
remember were all listing you in the credits now to save us support later :cool:

Damn! I knew there was a catch. ;)

Billspaintball
05-24-2006, 01:29 AM
Die Auto merge, Die... :(