If a coder has seemingly abandoned their plugin, and I've fixed it for 4.0

[nnStaff]

Can I post the newer version of the plugin in the 4.0 mod forum myself, or do I have to obtain permission even though they do not seem to be on the forums much anymore?

How do these sort of permissions and licenses work?

[borbole]

Can I post the newer version of the plugin in the 4.0 mod forum myself, or do I have to obtain permission even though they do not seem to be on the forums much anymore?

How do these sort of permissions and licenses work?

I don''t think you can post it here without the permission of the coder.

[nnStaff]

What if they don't even log on anymore?

[borbole]

What if they don't even log on anymore?

It still doesn''t matter.

[TNCclubman]

I think common sense prevails. If he doesnt even log in anymore, do whats good for the people. Post it. Then if he logs in and doesnt like that for some reason, which is highly doubtful, take it down. Id say 100% of the time he'd say thanks for updating it.

[KW802]

I think common sense prevails. If he doesnt even log in anymore, do whats good for the people. Post it. Then if he logs in and doesnt like that for some reason, which is highly doubtful, take it down. Id say 100% of the time he'd say thanks for updating it.
The old "It's easier to ask for forgiveness then to get permission..." reasoning.

[Zachery]

If the coder in question did not say you can release the code, then you cannot. Its his code.

[Paul M]

I think common sense prevails. If he doesnt even log in anymore, do whats good for the people. Post it. Then if he logs in and doesnt like that for some reason, which is highly doubtful, take it down. Id say 100% of the time he'd say thanks for updating it.
If someone does this and its bought to our attention, the mod will be removed and the poster infracted for copyright infringement.

[jkcerda]

If someone does this and its bought to our attention, the mod will be removed and the poster infracted for copyright infringement.

what if he gives credit to the coder?

[TheLastSuperman]

what if he gives credit to the coder?

It's still infringement, I just copied your whole forum and opened my own but I did give you credit... same principle = fail.

Check my profile, you'll see I recently released a UKBL mod HOWEVER in his original mod it stated "Re-Usable" code and if that is the case then you can i.e. the Yet Another Awards System originally by Hachno or Hancho I believe is now released by two other coders and I and someone else made a Ranks mod by doing so and in those cases it is fine, when they give permission beforehand. We have the option to choose if it's supported, re-usable code and many other options when coders post a modification.

Always remember the the old saying about assumptions... I'll skip the latter but I would rather not be made out to appear that way because some would be quite upset and could take action into their own hands even after the staff here does based on their own forum rules.

[Videx]

Every country on the planet recognizes that people die and when they do we give away their stuff to others. But not here! If you publish a single line of code, say "Hello World!" on vb.org, you then own it for eternity. Absurd, but apparently just never actually thought through by anyone except really paranoid coders (that were still alive).

[KW802]

Every country on the planet recognizes that people die and when they do we give away their stuff to others. But not here! If you publish a single line of code, say "Hello World!" on vb.org, you then own it for eternity. Absurd, but apparently just never actually thought through by anyone except really paranoid coders (that were still alive).Well, that's one of the sillier responses lately.

Just because a person has not logged into vB.org for some period of time does not mean that they relinquish their rights to anything that they may have created. For all you know they may have moved support to a different site. Or they are temporarily offline. Heck, who knows, maybe are a member of the military and just got shipped out (there are a good number of military folks in the vB community).

If the vB.org admin's suddenly decide to open up the flood gates by allowing anybody to claim code from other people simply because the original coder has not logged in for some pulled-out-of-the-air amount of time, I would be willing to bet there would be an even further exodus of coders releasing add-ons here.

Now, with that said, here's a question for for vB.org staff guys/gals....

I thought I read somewhere over the years that people who want to share their revisions to an older release can do so by just posting the attachment in the original release thread (as opposed to creating a new thread & essentially assuming ownership of the code)? That way situations like this are avoidable.

[King Kovifor]

Every country on the planet recognizes that people die and when they do we give away their stuff to others. But not here! If you publish a single line of code, say "Hello World!" on vb.org, you then own it for eternity. Absurd, but apparently just never actually thought through by anyone except really paranoid coders (that were still alive).

This is the way the world works. If I were to write a book, it would be mine. I would own the copyright. If I'm still alive, I may give, sell, or remove the copyright as my free will. When I die, there is a method to obtaining the copyright (don't ask me legality), but it may be given freely to someone. We preserve copyright here at vBulletin.org, because frankly, it's the legal and ethical thing to do.

[TNCclubman]

But this isnt a book. Its a code that is not being updated. Its like someone builds a bridge across a river, but after the river gets wider due to global warming, no one wants to extend the bridge because the architect is dead. And no one knows how to build a new bridge. But we cant extend it even though he's dead or unreachable.

Also, isnt the quote feature copyright infringement? lol

--------------- Added 1269711271 at 1269711271 ---------------

(FYI) if its the rule, then its the rule, just posting for discussion purposes, no one take it the wrong way)

[Reeve of shinra]

Previously, people posted the changed in the original thread (similiar to how some mods here say change "this code here" in the default vbfile.php with "this other code here")

If however the mod is marked off with the reusable code, then the owner already gave permission for others to use their work.

[King Kovifor]

But this isnt a book. Its a code that is not being updated. Its like someone builds a bridge across a river, but after the river gets wider due to global warming, no one wants to extend the bridge because the architect is dead. And no one knows how to build a new bridge. But we cant extend it even though he's dead or unreachable.

Also, isnt the quote feature copyright infringement? lol

--------------- Added 1269711271 at 1269711271 ---------------

(FYI) if its the rule, then its the rule, just posting for discussion purposes, no one take it the wrong way)

Even the bridge is a bad analogy, because the bridge doesn't gain copyright to the architect. If you have the knowledge to fix it, fix it for yourself, and if it is minor, leave instructions in the original thread. Reposting a whole modification with minor changes constitutes copyright infringement.

[nnStaff]

note that I'm fine with not posting it, but I feel bad for all the people out there who can use it...

however, isn't it even recognized in US Copyright Law that after you change a certain percentage, it becomes a different enough product to not fall under the copyright of the previous work anymore? Just food for thought... I think that if I have theoretically changed 75% of the code to make it work in vb4, but still wanted to post it under the same name for recognition, I should be able to.

Note that I'm not claiming I've changed that much... more like 20% and 50% for the two mods I've updated. But I just wanted to throw that in there for the debate :)

[Alfa1]

Doesn't copyright have to be explicitly stated? Like it is at the bottom of this page?

[Fungsten]

Can you start anew with the coding?

[fattony69]

I have two questions.

What if the coding is very close to being the same without looking at the original?
What if the coder is dead? (I am saying this in respects to the one spam mod that is amazing, but unfortunately we lost that coder to a tragic accident.)

I am no coder, but just curious.

[TNCclubman]

I think the percentage changed argument may be valid.

[Videx]

Doesn't copyright have to be explicitly stated? Like it is at the bottom of this page?Not from what I understand. As soon as you create a work, it's copyrighted. Proving it in court if necessary is something else.

But we're confusing the issue by trying to compare software routines to music or books. i.e., There's only so many ways to say "Hello World!" in PHP, so nobody can be expected to change x% of the code before using it.

We've all been flabbergasted at recent software patent infringement suits - like Apple claiming all mouse routines, or someone claiming to own all .gifs. But as ridiculous as that is, those are properly registered patents, not just a modification to existing code.

In the case of abandoned mods here, no patents or copyright registration has been obtained. It's simply a rule that prevents re-use. Rules can be changed. And it's certainly in VB's best interest to have a thriving mod community, rather than one that finds itself increasingly restricted to fewer and fewer mods that can only accomplish their objective with wild code workarounds.

What's so wrong about simply changing the rule to read "If you disappear for more than six months your code will automatically become reusable"? Where is this rule codified anyway, because honestly I don't know if that isn't what it says already.

[Zachery]

No ones saying you couldn't code a similiar modification, you just can't update and release their code.

[Rahstyles]

Dude post it who cares if it's sombody elses.. Obiously if they don't go on anymore.. That's because they don't care bout it... Like Nike says.... Just do it!!

[nnStaff]

No ones saying you couldn't code a similiar modification, you just can't update and release their code.
the issue here is that we're getting too caught up in copyrights and licensing IMO

it should be a given that mods posted freely for vb on these boards are open source and can be freely modified and re-released. why should I have to recode something completely to release it to my fellow users when I can just update what someone else has already done? so I've fixed 2 mods for vb4, but you guys would rather I keep this work to myself than share it with an open source community

if they were coding these for money, that's a different story. however they're not, and they're posting this free for vb users.

I will respect your rules but I think they need modifying

[Marco van Herwaarden]

Dude post it who cares if it's sombody elses.. Obiously if they don't go on anymore.. That's because they don't care bout it... Like Nike says.... Just do it!!
Please do not post advice that could cause others to loose their membership here.

Posting copyrighted material without permission of the original author is taken serious and will often result in infractions.

Copyright rules are not a site rule, they are international law. Any original work of art (and this includes code) is automatically copyrighted. If a person is still visiting our site, still alive or not doesn't make any difference.

[sulasno]

as a non coder and a user, if someone shares the Mod privately, I don't see a problem; Publishing somebody's code to the public is a no no

[Alfa1]

Copyright rules are not a site rule, they are international law. Any original work of art (and this includes code) is automatically copyrighted.
Can you please elaborate on this? It seems to me that this law would make any copyright registration superfluous. And I regularly need to register trademarks and copyrights. I know for a fact that several countries do not recognise a copyright, unless it is registered.

[Paul M]

it should be a given that mods posted freely for vb on these boards are open source and can be freely modified and re-released.

if they were coding these for money, that's a different story. however they're not, and they're posting this free for vb users.

I will respect your rules but I think they need modifying

Just because i dont charge for any modifications I write doesnt mean you should be allowed to copy and re-distribute them whenever you feel like it.

If any coder wants to do that then they can mark their mod as Re-Usable, otherwise you need their permission. Thats the law, whether you like it or not.

[BlackJacket]

The last i checked, you cannot copyright a language. HTML/PHP is a coding language. You also cannot copyright the format of of the mod. IE the end result, etc.

In reality, this is just a VB rule to allow coders rights to their mod. I agree with the "dead mod" rule which would allow someone else to take over the mod when the user has not updated it within a year period.

I was having a hard time find supporting laws that Marco stated. In fact, i did not find any copyright laws that mention copyrights on coding and scripting language. I also could not find specific coding such as PHP/HTML/etc categorized as "art." Marco please post references when making statements regarding international law.

From the U.S. Copyright law -

"(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work"


http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101
http://www.rpi.edu/dept/llc/webclass/web/project1/group5/format.html

[Smiler2009]

The last i checked, you cannot copyright a language. HTML/PHP is a coding language. You also cannot copyright the format of of the mod. IE the end result, etc.


From the U.S. Copyright law -

"(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work"
]

You shoot down your own argument right there. the Mod IS the original work of authorship which the copyright covers. System and method of operation don't apply, that's like trying to say you are copyrighting the syphon principal for a cistern, you can copyright the drawings of the cistern but not the syphon principal.

The copyright covers the actual mod itself, the intellectual property, the code written to make the whole. If you want to write a mod that does an identical job but written in a markedly different way then you'll have no copyright worries. If you copy the code verbatim you are breaking the law even if you write it all out by hand yourself.

Ask Microsoft if it minds you distributing DOS or Windows3.11, both obsolete, they surely wouldn't mind....

Edit: You wanted cites....

Have a look at this US software copyright attorney website which puts in laymans terms how software is protected internationally

http://www.softwareprotection.com/copyright.htm

Jeff.

[osayidan]

You can copyright a release of code, but you can not copyright the objective of said code or the method in which it is achieved.

If this were true, there would only be one forum software written for php.

So nothing is stopping people from taking an abandoned mod, studying it, and making an improved/updated version using the concepts the original describes. There no technology patents in question here so it's not like reverse engineering an iPhone and having apple chase after you.

So why not make a better version of a mod instead of changing a few lines of code? Too lazy? Don't do it.

[BlackJacket]

You shoot down your own argument right there. the Mod IS the original work of authorship which the copyright covers. System and method of operation don't apply, that's like trying to say you are copyrighting the syphon principal for a cistern, you can copyright the drawings of the cistern but not the syphon principal.

The copyright covers the actual mod itself, the intellectual property, the code written to make the whole. If you want to write a mod that does an identical job but written in a markedly different way then you'll have no copyright worries. If you copy the code verbatim you are breaking the law even if you write it all out by hand yourself.

Ask Microsoft if it minds you distributing DOS or Windows3.11, both obsolete, they surely wouldn't mind....

Edit: You wanted cites....

Have a look at this US software copyright attorney website which puts in laymans terms how software is protected internationally

http://www.softwareprotection.com/copyright.htm

Jeff.

You miss understood what i said. My argument was you cannot copyright the scripting language. I'm saying the O.P. can create the same mod using the same scripting language that has the exact same output without being threatened by copyright laws.

PHP is a method of operation.

You can copyright a release of code, but you can not copyright the objective of said code or the method in which it is achieved.

If this were true, there would only be one forum software written for php.

So nothing is stopping people from taking an abandoned mod, studying it, and making an improved/updated version using the concepts the original describes. There no technology patents in question here so it's not like reverse engineering an iPhone and having apple chase after you.

So why not make a better version of a mod instead of changing a few lines of code? Too lazy? Don't do it.

This is what i was trying to say. :)

[TNCclubman]

Does it matter that these mods are free, and not being changed and re sold, but given away free?

Like if I post a cool html code, and someone says, hey, I added an extra html code to it to add an extra table, here it is, ... actually, I just realized that happens on all the mods here in the discussions under the mod thread.

So looks like if he doesnt release it as a seperate post, but just posts under the original thread, as a "hey, I updated this for 4.0, here it is.." is this not happening through out the site already?

[War.Frog]

I don't think arguing the copyright issue is something vb.org wants to do, or needs to do. The issue here is stagnant mods - they're clearly a problem and they're something I believe vb.org DOES need to try and get a handle on and discourage.

While the developers quite rightly want the popularity of their mod reflected in installed counts and ratings ("no support without clicking installed"), there is no incentive or disincentive whatsoever for a developer to indicate "Supported" on his/her new modification - even if they have no intention of ever supporting it.

That needs to change. While users are provided encouragement and incentives to mark a developer's modification "installed", developers are under no similar obligations to their users. I think developers who abandon their modifications or fail to provide support on "supported" modifications after X period of time should earn strikes against that mod, reflected in the mod and the developer's profile.

Almost like an eBay-style buyer-beware, if Developer A releases a three "supported" mods and then abandons his/her installed base, they earn strikes against their mods that provide fair warning to the community of the developer's reputation.

That way, even if Developer A releases a killer hack, people may be reluctant to download and install it in their production environments if that Developer's support/activity rating is in the tank.

Installed/downloaded counts simply don't tell that story - they only tell us how big the problem can be.

[Zachery]

I don't think arguing the copyright issue is something vb.org wants to do, or needs to do. The issue here is stagnant mods - they're clearly a problem and they're something I believe vb.org DOES need to try and get a handle on and discourage.

While the developers quite rightly want the popularity of their mod reflected in installed counts and ratings ("no support without clicking installed"), there is no incentive or disincentive whatsoever for a developer to indicate "Supported" on his/her new modification - even if they have no intention of ever supporting it.

That needs to change. While users are provided encouragement and incentives to mark a developer's modification "installed", developers are under no similar obligations to their users. I think developers who abandon their modifications or fail to provide support on "supported" modifications after X period of time should earn strikes against that mod, reflected in the mod and the developer's profile.

Almost like an eBay-style buyer-beware, if Developer A releases a three "supported" mods and then abandons his/her installed base, they earn strikes against their mods that provide fair warning to the community of the developer's reputation.

That way, even if Developer A releases a killer hack, people may be reluctant to download and install it in their production environments if that Developer's support/activity rating is in the tank.

Installed/downloaded counts simply don't tell that story - they only tell us how big the problem can be.
Nothing has ever stoped anyone from writing new code to replace a mod. For example we had Lesanes Store hack, Matthew wrote uShop/uCash, a similiar concept, possibly the same goal, but in the end different code.

There have been other cases of this: the numerous vB index pages in vB2/3 (MyvBIndex, vBindex, etc), Quick replys (numerous), Welcome Panels, Shoutboxes. Every few years we see new people with the same idea's doing their own things, no one is stoping them from doing their own things. What we (the community) are doing is saying you can't take their code (legally) and release it as your own. You can take their code and update it for yourself, nothing stoping you at all on this level.

If you release a modification that copys the concept, no one around here is likely to go all crazy and sue you*. Hopefully the two authors will fuel each other to make better code, features, etc or they can work together to do the same. You won't be the first, or last to do it.

If you see a mod that has been abandoned and really want to help, write a new addon to take place of the old one.


*It hasn't happened yet anyway.

[TalkVirginia]

I don't think arguing the copyright issue is something vb.org wants to do, or needs to do. The issue here is stagnant mods - they're clearly a problem and they're something I believe vb.org DOES need to try and get a handle on and discourage.

While the developers quite rightly want the popularity of their mod reflected in installed counts and ratings ("no support without clicking installed"), there is no incentive or disincentive whatsoever for a developer to indicate "Supported" on his/her new modification - even if they have no intention of ever supporting it.

That needs to change. While users are provided encouragement and incentives to mark a developer's modification "installed", developers are under no similar obligations to their users. I think developers who abandon their modifications or fail to provide support on "supported" modifications after X period of time should earn strikes against that mod, reflected in the mod and the developer's profile.

Almost like an eBay-style buyer-beware, if Developer A releases a three "supported" mods and then abandons his/her installed base, they earn strikes against their mods that provide fair warning to the community of the developer's reputation.

That way, even if Developer A releases a killer hack, people may be reluctant to download and install it in their production environments if that Developer's support/activity rating is in the tank.

Installed/downloaded counts simply don't tell that story - they only tell us how big the problem can be.

I love this idea!! War.Frog has a good point here. :D

[Zachery]

Almost like an eBay-style buyer-beware, if Developer A releases a three "supported" mods and then abandons his/her installed base, they earn strikes against their mods that provide fair warning to the community of the developer's reputation.
So now were punishing people for having things to do outside of their hobby, seems unfair. You haven't ever released a single addon have you?

Supported means different things to different users, Geeky Designs supports its modifications by fixing bugs, we don't currently go out of our way to support everything every user asks.

One last thing to add: People here write addons because they wanted to, wrote it for themselfs, wrote it for a client who wanted to release it. Releasing an addon here doesn't pay our bills, or tuck us in bed at night. There are 168 hours in the week, 64 of these are likely consumed by sleep. This now leaves us with 104 workable hours for the week. Assuming we work a normal 9-5 job, or at the very least 40 hours a week we're down to 64 hours. How much time do you propose an author spends on vBulletin.org suppoorting their modifications that they are not paid to support? This 64 hours that are left assumes no commute time, no family time, no time to cook food or take showers, or do daily chores.

[TheLastSuperman]

I can see how some have different perceptions and opinions on this however it's rather simple to understand, arguing a point on the other hand leads to 3 pages :p

1) You can't copy the code 100% and find/replace the creators name with yours not even 99% (unless they marked it as "Re-Usable code" as previously posted).
2) You can have a similar idea and code your own version of a mod up as long as the majority of it differs as some things you can't simply recode for instance an actual php function (http://www.w3schools.com/PHP/php_functions.asp) may have to be called with the same code but a writename does not always have to call the name "John Doe" now does it? Nope ;)
3) Just be respectful, that's why someone became ticked off and invented copyrights... someone flat our jacked their idea and did not give credit... innovation by instinct on the other hand is always welcome as long as it's a new and different way to make the world turn.

[TalkVirginia]

So now were punishing people for having things to do outside of their hobby, seems unfair. You haven't ever released a single addon have you?

Supported means different things to different users, Geeky Designs supports its modifications by fixing bugs, we don't currently go out of our way to support everything every user asks.

One last thing to add: People here write addons because they wanted to, wrote it for themselfs, wrote it for a client who wanted to release it. Releasing an addon here doesn't pay our bills, or tuck us in bed at night. There are 168 hours in the week, 64 of these are likely consumed by sleep. This now leaves us with 104 workable hours for the week. Assuming we work a normal 9-5 job, or at the very least 40 hours a week we're down to 64 hours. How much time do you propose an author spends on vBulletin.org suppoorting their modifications that they are not paid to support? This 64 hours that are left assumes no commute time, no family time, no time to cook food or take showers, or do daily chores.

If someone is going to write a mod or addon, I would expect them to support it until such a time they can't. There have been quite a few mods that I've used in the past that I've really enjoyed and the author has abandoned them over time. Seems like there should be some type of clause that states if an addon or mod is not updated or supported for a period of time it automatically becomes re-usable code, or rendered obsolete and taken off the site. Just my $0.02 cents worth..

[Zachery]

If someone is going to write a mod or addon, I would expect them to support it until such a time they can't. There have been quite a few mods that I've used in the past that I've really enjoyed and the author has abandoned them over time. Seems like there should be some type of clause that states if an addon or mod is not updated or supported for a period of time it automatically becomes re-usable code, or rendered obsolete and taken off the site. Just my $0.02 cents worth..

You have also never written an addon or provided support for it have you? The only person who can put that clause in is the author and only if they want to.

Lets say you build a house, and don't actually move in for a few years for whatever reason. But a hobo has now moved in, you seemed to have abandoned the house, now he wants to live there and he says its his. You seemingly abandoned the house, its the same idea.

[Link14716]

If someone is going to write a mod or addon, I would expect them to support it until such a time they can't. There have been quite a few mods that I've used in the past that I've really enjoyed and the author has abandoned them over time. Seems like there should be some type of clause that states if an addon or mod is not updated or supported for a period of time it automatically becomes re-usable code, or rendered obsolete and taken off the site. Just my $0.02 cents worth..

If there were any such clauses, I would simply not bother releasing my code here to be honest. My code is my code. You can't go and release my code as your own without my permission, period. Either write your own, fix it for yourself and don't release it, or get my permission.

[TalkVirginia]

You have also never written an addon or provided support for it have you?

Actually, I have.. See the link in my sig. The previous author(s) of the "Email Reminders for Inactive Users" mod were kind enough to put up the mod up as "Re-usable Code" and hasn't updated or supported the mod, so I rewrote it. Matter of fact, I'm in the process of re-writing it again.

[TNCclubman]

what about just posting under the original authors thread and say, 'here it is with the bug fixed."

Happens all the time, and fixing it to work for vB4.0 is like fixing a bug.

[Mike Anime]

why not add another feature to the script or code it in a different language.

doing that should NOT be copywrite infringment

[theque]

what about just posting under the original authors thread and say, 'here it is with the bug fixed."

Happens all the time, and fixing it to work for vB4.0 is like fixing a bug.

This is a good idea or how about showing us a tutorial of how to fix this mod for vb4 "just for educational purposes only of course"

!idea!

[abqtj]

what about just posting under the original authors thread and say, 'here it is with the bug fixed."

Happens all the time, and fixing it to work for vB4.0 is like fixing a bug.

Except why would anyone look in the 3.x mods section for 4.x mods?

[War.Frog]

So now were punishing people for having things to do outside of their hobby, seems unfair. You haven't ever released a single addon have you?

Supported means different things to different users, Geeky Designs supports its modifications by fixing bugs, we don't currently go out of our way to support everything every user asks.

One last thing to add: People here write addons because they wanted to, wrote it for themselfs, wrote it for a client who wanted to release it. Releasing an addon here doesn't pay our bills, or tuck us in bed at night. There are 168 hours in the week, 64 of these are likely consumed by sleep. This now leaves us with 104 workable hours for the week. Assuming we work a normal 9-5 job, or at the very least 40 hours a week we're down to 64 hours. How much time do you propose an author spends on vBulletin.org suppoorting their modifications that they are not paid to support? This 64 hours that are left assumes no commute time, no family time, no time to cook food or take showers, or do daily chores.

You know, fair enough actually. I think the idea was backwards. What WOULD be ideal would be to reward developers who support their modifications with a points-style system similar to eBay. That way it's still a "buyer beware" but developers who decide to go the extra mile and offer basic / good / excellent support are duly rewarded and recognized for their efforts.

[nnStaff]

Except why would anyone look in the 3.x mods section for 4.x mods?
my goal here isn't to skirt laws, or take credit for other people's work. I just want to share my fixes for people who are patiently waiting. If it means just posting the fix under the 3.x link to get it out there, that's fine with me

[ragtek]

Every country on the planet recognizes that people die and when they do we give away their stuff to others. But not here! If you publish a single line of code, say "Hello World!" on vb.org, you then own it for eternity. Absurd, but apparently just never actually thought through by anyone except really paranoid coders (that were still alive).

That's not true!
If you die, you still have the copyright for 20-70 years after your dead (depents on what (music, text, etc...)

[Videx]

That's not true!
If you die, you still have the copyright for 20-70 years after your dead (depents on what (music, text, etc...)Yes, thanks primarily to the Disney Corporation and Sonny Bono. Presumably when their copyrights are due to expire next they'll find more legislators willing to push the date back even more. As if Walt Disney or anyone related to him are being harmed by expiring copyrights. Total sham.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with software patents. Or "modification copyrights", which don't actually exist (no matter how many times some people say they do).

[TheLastSuperman]

why not add another feature to the script or code it in a different language.

doing that should NOT be copywrite infringment

Coders have that option when posting a mod, "Allow Translation" otherwise if they simply redo it and post well they never received permission.

Yes, thanks primarily to the Disney Corporation and Sonny Bono. Presumably when their copyrights are due to expire next they'll find more legislators willing to push the date back even more. As if Walt Disney or anyone related to him are being harmed by expiring copyrights. Total sham.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with software patents. Or "modification copyrights", which don't actually exist (no matter how many times some people say they do).

Your missing the key arguments by others here and I'm sticking with them as they have been around longer, been around here longer too and have had more time than you to encounter and handle situations like this.

You can google it, yahoo it, bing it even but long story short unless you or I are lawyers then why argue with each other. I do know the rules here and I will stick to them and if I release a work I consider valued to me enough to sue over then I will if it's ever misused or re-released without permission as I have went through the trouble of becoming an LLC, I have hired an accountant, a lawyer and the whole nine so as the old saying goes... you need to have money to make money and anyone taking away from me (in essence my family, married with three children) will be treated as a thief plain and simple, no excuses, no "I didn't know or realize" if your grown enough to register on these forums then you were grown and responsible enough to own up to the fact you should have read all the rules and other information before posting or assuming anything, terms of service and rules are there for a reason.

All of this boils down to right and wrong and giving credit where it is due, simply asking beforehand will only result in a yes or no and if you can't live with either response then don't bother to ask and don't bother to assume you can simply take what you want and run, in some countries they have been known to chop off hands and here we arguing over this.

[Mike Anime]

even though coders might not come back here for time on end for whatever reason you can click their name and choose to send them an email through the forums and as long as the email account is active they will get that email.

a rule of thumb here would be unless they say you can redo their code DON'T

[Videx]

You guys really aren't paying attention. We aren't talking about emailing a coder and asking permission; we're talking about coders that completely disappear. Dead, perhaps, or changed emails and no longer care a whit about vbulletin or mods they wrote here.

As for who's been around longer, again you've missed out on reality. Perhaps someone on the vb.org staff has been around computers and copyright law as long as I have, but how can you tell?

[Zachery]

You guys really aren't paying attention. We aren't talking about emailing a coder and asking permission; we're talking about coders that completely disappear. Dead, perhaps, or changed emails and no longer care a whit about vbulletin or mods they wrote here.
Its their code, doesn't matter if they're dead or abandoned the site, its their code. Without their permission you cannot relrelease their workd, period, end of story.

[War.Frog]

Really? Sorry, too easy. vb.org has one of two choices here:


throw its hands up in the air and say "oh well too bad so sad"
get proactive and community-focused and address something that is obviously a serious issue here


The issue of copyright and code stealing is a red herring and makes for a way-too-convenient dismissal of the problem. I quite frankly respect a coder's right to his/her own intellectual property and vb.org can't possibly be expected to muck around in that quagmire. So THAT I agree with.

However, there are things that can be done to benefit the entire community here. Without even breaking a sweat here are just some of many ideas that could be considered:



establish expiries on "Supported" tags
a scoring model that publicly rewards active coders (why shouldn't they get recognized?)
this scoring should appeal-able (similar to eBay model)
automatic stale-mod indicator (after x-days coder not active)
automatic notification to mod authors when their mods go stale
indicator when creating mod that allows author to check "please mark as free-to-use if I stop supporting"
automatic change of "Developer" image and text tag to "Developer - Inactive"


Come on, I'm sure there are ten billion other things that the community could come up with to help discourage the walkaways we see here all too often. Simply dismissing the issue with the wave of the hand demonstrates a shocking lack of vision and community mindedness.

[Zachery]

If you want to make suggestions I would advise posting in the suggestions forums.

But to your point, what does it matter of the developer is inactive but the addon is good? For Myself and my friend we do releases under a single name, we rarely login to the account unless to release/update a mod.
Why should a mod go stale just because the author isn't around, does it mean the modification isn't usable? You're only going to confuse things. Some addons are timeless and live though upgrades (rpg stats for one...).
Authors can release the code under more or less any copyright (not GPL, its just wont work with the vB license agreement) and release it here.

[New Joe]

All i can say is that it is great that some people are helping to get some of the old mods working for vB4 and are willing to share what work they've done.
Wouldn't it be ok just to add to the actual Mod that this works for vB4 and attach the files to the post in the Mod Thread.
I always read the Threads no matter which version they are for just in case someone has added anything to get it working for the version I'm using.

[Fungsten]

Wouldn't it be ok just to add to the actual Mod that this works for vB4 and attach the files to the post in the Mod Thread.
I always read the Threads no matter which version they are for just in case someone has added anything to get it working for the version I'm using.

I agree. Would that be a solution?

[Lynne]

You may not go and attach a new version of the product into the thread. And most 'fixes' that are posted in threads a little two-liner bits of code that need fixing. The rules state you may not post more than 10 lines of copyrighted code.

Some coders don't even like fixes posted in their threads. I know I have tried to always send a PM to the developer asking if they mind if I post a bit of code to fix or change something. Some of them like to 'approve' fixes first.

You need to watch how you treat developers. Other developers will notice how respectful we are towards them and may choose to not deal with it and not release their stuff to the public if they don't like the attitude. A gimme attitude will not win any points.

[TheLastSuperman]

As for who's been around longer, again you've missed out on reality. Perhaps someone on the vb.org staff has been around computers and copyright law as long as I have, but how can you tell?

Actually I reiterated "Reality" in terms I hoped you would grasp and to answer the latter, your title says "member" not "coder" or "designer" yet you will argue how do I know your not a coder or designer well I do not see anything being contributed and thus another assumption is made but tbo would it not be safer to go along with the conclusions of valued members and staff here or go along with a plain jane "member" that has 1,119 post vs mine when I joined over a year later? Most will go with the opinions of the people that others have trusted and listened to for years would you not do the same? Again all that is based on a number of conditionals, factors, whatever you want to call and and however you want to explain it but again long story short I'm not your daddy, anyone can break a rule or law so if you can live with it then go for it otherwise join the club, the right one because currently your in "Self-Justified Anonymous" and that club is the worst just ask around ;).

[Fungsten]

Anyways, can the OP put the "update" in the VB 3 forum?

[TheLastSuperman]

You may not go and attach a new version of the product into the thread. And most 'fixes' that are posted in threads a little two-liner bits of code that need fixing. The rules state you may not post more than 10 lines of copyrighted code.

Some coders don't even like fixes posted in their threads. I know I have tried to always send a PM to the developer asking if they mind if I post a bit of code to fix or change something. Some of them like to 'approve' fixes first.

You need to watch how you treat developers. Other developers will notice how respectful we are towards them and may choose to not deal with it and not release their stuff to the public if they don't like the attitude. A gimme attitude will not win any points.

Anyways, can the OP put the "update" in the VB 3 forum?

I think the answer is right above your quote, it was also the post just before mine that was just before yours too :p