Releasing a unique hack mostly using other people's stuff

[Borgs8472]

Please move this to the correct forum if this isn't the right one. ;)

Anyhow, I made an effect on one of my forums that I want to share with lots of people, the problem is that there are very few origonal components. I've never 'released' a hack before, so I want to get this right.

Given I fully credit the authors of the previous hacks, (linking to their threads) am I allowed to give a 'all in one' solution to my idea, or must I say 'you must install hack X, then hack Y, then Z, afterwards do these code modifications...'

Oh, my parts of the modifications are only template hacks, though the bits they rely on involve the php.

I just don't know. So I thought I'd ask first. :)

[yoyoyoyo]

Please move this to the correct forum if this isn't the right one. ;)

Anyhow, I made an effect on one of my forums that I want to share with lots of people, the problem is that there are very few origonal components. I've never 'released' a hack before, so I want to get this right.

Given I fully credit the authors of the previous hacks, (linking to their threads) am I allowed to give a 'all in one' solution to my idea, or must I say 'you must install hack X, then hack Y, then Z, afterwards do these code modifications...'

Oh, my parts of the modifications are only template hacks, though the bits they rely on involve the php.

I just don't know. So I thought I'd ask first. :)You should contact the authors and ask if they mind you using the code, and if they do then try to find another way to do the same thing. It's all about learning and having fun, while respecting the hard work of others at the same time.

[sketch42]

Please move this to the correct forum if this isn't the right one. ;)

Anyhow, I made an effect on one of my forums that I want to share with lots of people, the problem is that there are very few origonal components. I've never 'released' a hack before, so I want to get this right.

Given I fully credit the authors of the previous hacks, (linking to their threads) am I allowed to give a 'all in one' solution to my idea, or must I say 'you must install hack X, then hack Y, then Z, afterwards do these code modifications...'

Oh, my parts of the modifications are only template hacks, though the bits they rely on involve the php.

I just don't know. So I thought I'd ask first. :)

you must first ask the other hack authors permission, unless otherwise specified in the hack by the author, to use his/her code

***EDIT*** damn yoyoyoyo beat me to the punch lol

[tamarian]

My $0.02 cents worth: It will depend on the original hacks. Check the copyright notice inside the code files. If there are no copyrights anywhere, then it is public domain, you can use it freely. Some licenses are GPL, which means you can also use them freely, as long as your hack is also GPL or GPL-compatible. Some copyright notices/licenses clearly state that you cannot distrubute, change or do anything with it without permission, in this case, ask the author if they don't mind.

It's always a good practice to ask the author, just in case and to avoid hard feelings :)

[Link14716]

My $0.02 cents worth: It will depend on the original hacks. Check the copyright notice inside the code files. If there are no copyrights anywhere, then it is public domain, you can use it freely. Some licenses are GPL, which means you can also use them freely, as long as your hack is also GPL or GPL-compatible. Some copyright notices/licenses clearly state that you cannot distrubute, change or do anything with it without permission, in this case, ask the author if they don't mind.

It's always a good practice to ask the author, just in case and to avoid hard feelings :)

"All modifications are copyrighted to their respective owners."

Nothing here is public domain unless otherwise stated.

[tamarian]

"All modifications are copyrighted to their respective owners."

Where is that line from?

This may not fly, as court cases have relied heavily on headers in source code. I'm not a lawyer, but it is best not to rely on external docuemnts elsewhere to assume they protect your copyrights.

[Erwin]

Anything you write has copyright that belongs to you - that's common law. You can choose to waive that right but you cannot be assumed to have done so without writing. So every piece of script here has copyright belonging to the author unless otherwise stated.

Disclaimer: The above should not be taken as formal legal advice. Please speak to your legal representative for formal legal advice.

[Chris M]

Where is that line from?

This may not fly, as court cases have relied heavily on headers in source code. I'm not a lawyer, but it is best not to rely on external docuemnts elsewhere to assume they protect your copyrights.

Indeed - As Erwin said, it's a common right that you have regardless of whether the code has a header or not :)

But the stupidity comes down to such pathetic things as a slightly similar code structure can be taken as copyright if people are willing to take it that far :ermm:

Satan

[tamarian]

Anything you write has copyright that belongs to you - that's common law. You can choose to waive that right but you cannot be assumed to have done so without writing. So every piece of script here has copyright belonging to the author unless otherwise stated.

That did not stand in courts in regards to source code. Case in point is the famouse Berkly University vs. AT&T (or whoever represented AT&T).

Since then, source code copyright headers became a standard practice and a significant part of source code files. Just like vB's source code, you always see the copyright stated clearly in the headers, even thought there's a separate license agreement.

So for those who do not want to mess with lawsuits, spend a couple seconds to cut and past your copyright notice into your source code headers, and don't assume anything.

[Erwin]

That did not stand in courts in regards to source code. Case in point is the famouse Berkly University vs. AT&T (or whoever represented AT&T).

Since then, source code copyright headers became a standard practice and a significant part of source code files. Just like vB's source code, you always see the copyright stated clearly in the headers, even thought there's a separate license agreement.

So for those who do not want to mess with lawsuits, spend a couple seconds to cut and past your copyright notice into your source code headers, and don't assume anything.

That case has nothing to do with this issue.

In that case (and this is my understanding of it) AT&T was distributing an open source Unix piece of code (?OpenBSD). Berkeley copied and used it but did not include the copyright notice that indicated that AT&T wrote part of it. The court stated that Berkeley must include the AT&T copyright notice in the files.

Scripts released here however cannot be assumed to be open sourced just because no copyright notice is present. The case basically states that open source code, althought free, still retains copyright of the author and the notice should remain.

Mind you, I could be wrong in my interpretation. Disclaimer: as per my previous post - this is not legal advice.

[tamarian]

That case has nothing to do with this issue.

In that case (and this is my understanding of it) AT&T was distributing an open source Unix piece of code (?OpenBSD). Berkeley copied and used it but did not include the copyright notice that indicated that AT&T wrote part of it. The court stated that Berkeley must include the AT&T copyright notice in the files.

Scripts released here however cannot be assumed to be open sourced just because no copyright notice is present. The case basically states that open source code, althought free, still retains copyright of the author and the notice should remain.

Mind you, I could be wrong in my interpretation. Disclaimer: as per my previous post - this is not legal advice.

You are wrong in your interpretation :), and I also disclaim that I am not a lwayer (IANAL)

This has exactly to do with AT&T not having any copyright notices on their source code. And AT&T distributing the source code to universities and having it published in educational books etc., that rendered it public domain.

AT&T had to add the copyright notice, and Berkly had to do likewise, but they earned the right to use it, provided they maintain the notice. But the key point was that AT&T failed in asserting their copyrights, and preventing further release of BSD, and the main point was due to distributing the code without a copyright notice. Note that even public domain source code can have a copyright notice on it.

There are other angles in that case, but since then, everyone knew the value of indicating what copyrights and license they whish to claim on that code and clearly refrence it in the source code, to avoid having it considered public domain.

That's why even if you think you're protected, include the copyrights on the headers just in case, and don't take anything for granted, why risk it..

[Erwin]

You are wrong in your interpretation :), and I also disclaim that I am not a lwayer (IANAL)

This has exactly to do with AT&T not having any copyright notices on their source code. And AT&T distributing the source code to universities and having it published in educational books etc., that rendered it public domain.

AT&T had to add the copyright notice, and Berkly had to do likewise, but they earned the right to use it, provided they maintain the notice. But the key point was that AT&T failed in asserting their copyrights, and preventing further release of BSD, and the main point was due to distributing the code without a copyright notice. Note that even public domain source code can have a copyright notice on it.

There are other angles in that case, but since then, everyone knew the value of indicating what copyrights and license they whish to claim on that code and clearly refrence it in the source code, to avoid having it considered public domain.

That's why even if you think you're protected, include the copyrights on the headers just in case, and don't take anything for granted, why risk it..

Well, I am a lawyer. ;)

From what I understand, AT&T lost copyright over the code by distributing it widely, effectively making it open source. They implied they were waiving their rights to it. That's different to saying that source code with no copyright notice is automatically open source.

Similarly, if I make a script, and send copies to everyone without making it clear that it is not public domain, my actions imply that I want it to be public domain. However, if I make a script and only upload it to vBulletin.org which only licensed vBulletin owners can access, that hardly means I want my script to be public domain.

See the difference?

Disclaimer: Though I am a lawyer, the above is not formal legal advice. ;)

[Erwin]

By the way, don't take my word for it, read these links:

http://www.patents.com/copyrigh.htm
http://www.piercelaw.edu/tfield/copysof.htm

I'll leave this discussion since I have real legal work to do now. :)

[tamarian]

Well, I am a lawyer. ;)

From what I understand, AT&T lost copyright over the code by distributing it widely, effectively making it open source. They implied they were waiving their rights to it. That's different to saying that source code with no copyright notice is automatically open source.

Similarly, if I make a script, and send copies to everyone without making it clear that it is not public domain, my actions imply that I want it to be public domain. However, if I make a script and only upload it to vBulletin.org which only licensed vBulletin owners can access, that hardly means I want my script to be public domain.

See the difference?

Disclaimer: Though I am a lawyer, the above is not formal legal advice. ;)

I can't see the difference yet. Are you saying that people who publish source code and distribute it to tens of thousands here on vbulletin.org without any copyright notice are not distributing it? By the mere fact of uploading your code to vbulletin.org, you are distrubuting it.

If AT&T with their millions of dollars lost such an argument, I'd rather not risk it, as I don't have their clout. I'd ather spend the few seconds required to paste that notice.

[Chris M]

In a protected environment such as this, it can be seen as "Copyrighted" as you are exclusively distributing it to others with the intent that you are acknowledged as the creator ;)

However as you say, you may be better off posting some kind of Copyright notice, if not in the actual code, in the installation instructions or readme file, etc ;)

Satan

[nexialys]

hum.. .looks like everyone here is melting the request from Borg...

he wanted to know if he had the right to release a hack that was a modification of an existing hack released here...

simple: if it's a addon to a specific tool, just contact the author and usually you get agreement within the day to release it as a addon.

if it's a template edit, just release it in the template Modifications forum and provide links to the original hacks required.

no legal threat anywhere... this is related to vB content, and not a single coder here have the right to add other license or copyright than the one Jelsoft provided, as all modifications to the code from Jelsoft have to be made accordingly to the source code license itself... Jelsoft License, that's all...

[Marco van Herwaarden]

this is related to vB content, and not a single coder here have the right to add other license or copyright than the one Jelsoft provided, as all modifications to the code from Jelsoft have to be made accordingly to the source code license itself
This don't need to be 100% the case when it is an addon.


PS Dunno if you changed mail address, but: :D :D :D
nexialys,

You are currently showing up as unlicensed. To be able to download hacks and/or receive support here at vBulletin.org, we ask you to please click here (http://members.vbulletin.com/membersupport_priority.php) (vB-germany users click here (http://members.vbulletin-germany.com/membersupport_priority.php)) and enter your email address, to show us that you are licensed.

You will need to use your customer number and password (which will be in the email you got when you paid for your license) to access that page. Please note that your email is case sensitive. The update of your account may take up to one hour.

Thank you.

[nexialys]

yeah, i know about my license, no need to post that unlicensed thingy each time i post...

btw, this unlicense is about downloading things on the forum, not posting and discussing... (if i'm right with all these licensing things.. lol)

[tamarian]

this is related to vB content, and not a single coder here have the right to add other license or copyright than the one Jelsoft provided

Are you saying that any work contributed here becomes the property/copyright of Jelsoft?

There are many hacks that do not change any vB code.

[Marco van Herwaarden]

btw, this unlicense is about downloading things on the forum, not posting and discussing... (if i'm right with all these licensing things.. lol)
Also posting in some areas i think.

Just wanted to tell you, you might had changed mail address and forgot to update the priority support.

[nexialys]

Are you saying that any work contributed here becomes the property/copyright of Jelsoft?
There are many hacks that do not change any vB code.
No, but you can't apply a copyright that infrige the Jelsoft License if your work is based on vB coded ...

if you release a software that plug into vB, that is different. the software you work with is licensed your way, and may not be the same kind of license or copyright than vB... but it can't give you any right over vBulletin...

GPL and usually all other licenses work the same... you can apply restrictions, copyrights or trademarks, but not licensing that is opposite to the product you work on.

if you code a piece of vBulletin and this piece is integrated in the software, you can't think of a way to protect your code but not the rest... that's why there are some relations between the license and the tool you work with.

??EDIT

Also posting in some areas i think.
To download hacks and get support you will need......
we can have an announcement or something that tell us where we can't post if we're unlicensed... like: you can read but can't post here if you are unlicensed... be3cause actually, i don't get support, i simply discuss... and i can also post in my own releases to Give support... as Give is not Get... ;)

[tamarian]

No, but you can't apply a copyright that infrige the Jelsoft License if your work is based on vB coded ...

Well, the whole discussion from the beginning was about other people's work. I don't think anyone was suggesting to infring on Jelsoft's copyrights. vb.org is owned by Jelsoft, so trust them to watch out for themselves if they find any hack here on vb.org was infringing on their copyrights in any way. They will let you know about it.

if you release a software that plug into vB, that is different. the software you work with is licensed your way, and may not be the same kind of license or copyright than vB... but it can't give you any right over vBulletin...

GPL and usually all other licenses work the same... you can apply restrictions, copyrights or trademarks, but not licensing that is opposite to the product you work on.

Not sure what issue is being addressed here. You don't need any copyrights over anyone else's copyright to establish your own copyrights. It would be rediculious for anyone to think that because they have some copyrighted material that works with vB, that they can claim copyright over the whole thing? That's just silly, and I don't think anyone remotely suggested it.

if you code a piece of vBulletin and this piece is integrated in the software, you can't think of a way to protect your code but not the rest... that's why there are some relations between the license and the tool you work with.

Not sure what you mean. You can always protect your code and/or portions of your code if you so desire. There are many hacks from the past that are now part of stock vBulletin. What Jelsoft does is contact the author to get their permission. You'll find those in the credits page.

[Marco van Herwaarden]

we can have an announcement or something that tell us where we can't post if we're unlicensed... like: you can read but can't post here if you are unlicensed... be3cause actually, i don't get support, i simply discuss... and i can also post in my own releases to Give support... as Give is not Get...
I actually am not really sure, thought i remember something like that. Think the service request for example is closed to unlicensed for posting.

[Marco van Herwaarden]

GPL and usually all other licenses work the same... you can apply restrictions, copyrights or trademarks, but not licensing that is opposite to the product you work on.
How about if i write some Windows Software and release it under GPL. My software would be depending on some windows function calls one way or the other.

Or if you release commercial software for linux, linux is open source.

Where to draw the line?

[sketch42]

How about if i write some Windows Software and release it under GPL. My software would be depending on some windows function calls one way or the other.

Or if you release commercial software for linux, linux is open source.

Where to draw the line?

that windows example isnt the greatest because if i choose to release it as free its my perogative... and if i choose to sell it MS can't make any claims on it just because my software is dependant on theirs

[tamarian]

that windows example isnt the greatest because if i choose to release it as free its my perogative... and if i choose to sell it MS can make any claims on it just because my software is dependant on theirs

Did you mean "MS can't make any claims"? Which does make sense, since MS is competing with many other software makers who make products for Windows.

[sketch42]

Did you mean "MS can't make any claims"? Which does make sense, since MS is competing with many other software makers who make products for Windows.

yes i meant cant

what makes sense that they can or cant make claims??

[Marco van Herwaarden]

that windows example isnt the greatest because if i choose to release it as free its my perogative... and if i choose to sell it MS can't make any claims on it just because my software is dependant on theirsThat was exactly my point. :D

[sketch42]

That was exactly my point. :D

Ahhhhhhhhhhh .... ok

[mfarmerhi]

nexialys, sorry to hijack the thread, but I wasn't able to PM you or Email you through your profile here.

Could you check out your thread here: https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/showthread.php?p=742049#post742049

I'd REALLY appreciate any help you could give.

~ Mark

[Borgs8472]

hum.. .looks like everyone here is melting the request from Borg...

he wanted to know if he had the right to release a hack that was a modification of an existing hack released here...

simple: if it's a addon to a specific tool, just contact the author and usually you get agreement within the day to release it as a addon.

if it's a template edit, just release it in the template Modifications forum and provide links to the original hacks required.

no legal threat anywhere... this is related to vB content, and not a single coder here have the right to add other license or copyright than the one Jelsoft provided, as all modifications to the code from Jelsoft have to be made accordingly to the source code license itself... Jelsoft License, that's all...
Yeah, ultimately it's a template hack so that seems a simpler route to go down :)

My finished and first release :D (https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/showthread.php?t=92930)

[Boofo]

By the way, don't take my word for it, read these links:

http://www.patents.com/copyrigh.htm
http://www.piercelaw.edu/tfield/copysof.htm

I'll leave this discussion since I have real legal work to do now. :)

So, what you are saying is you ARE a lawyer then, right Dr. ? LOL

[Boofo]

I can't see the difference yet. Are you saying that people who publish source code and distribute it to tens of thousands here on vbulletin.org without any copyright notice are not distributing it? By the mere fact of uploading your code to vbulletin.org, you are distrubuting it.

If AT&T with their millions of dollars lost such an argument, I'd rather not risk it, as I don't have their clout. I'd ather spend the few seconds required to paste that notice.

This being in the footer should take care of any concerns you might have. ;)

All modifications are copyrighted to their respective owners.