[Kaelon]

Originally Posted by filburt1

Microsoft lets developers make programs for their OS...would that be generous?

Hacks are merely powered by vB when written correctly, and don't contain any vB code. In the case of vB3, even the instructions need not contain a mere snippet of vB code if the hack is authored correctly.

While perhaps generous was not the correct word, given that Microsoft - like Jelsoft - has a proprietary interest in allowing and encouraging derivative works of their primary products, the legal precedent is quite clear (cf. 17 USC 106(d)), in that any work that is "inspired" by another is considered a derivative, and the intellectual property of the creator and owner of the original work from which it is derived. Only when work that is inspired meets a carefully crafted set of four separate legal criteria (the "fair use" and "ex parte" tests, outlined in 17 USC 107) does it not fall under the legal ownership of the original creator of the work from which it is derived or inspired.

In the case of vBulletin hacks, the code is clearly derived from the vBulletin base code, specifically, in that it creates interoperability with the parent work. The law is very clear in that the intellectual property rights of the code belong to Jelsoft. Because Jelsoft has a prioprietary interest in enabling customers to customize their software - much like Microsoft has a proprietary interest to license and distribute dynamic linked libraries to enable interoperability with component software - it very rightly waives its intellectual property rights in these cases, if not explicitly, then certainly implicitly, which is sufficient to the letter of the law.

Other software companies are far less interested in encouraing innovation like Microsoft and Jelsoft -- such as Apple, which during the first decade of its operation, prohibited any software manufacturers from developing software for its hardware (since it was legally derived from the core product). Apple's product model was based upon the "cartridge" ideology. IBM and its "compatibility", which implicitly waived IBM's proprietary and legal rights to derivative or inspired works, nevertheless proved to be far more markettable, and led to its dominance in the industry.

I'm not saying that Apple or Microsoft were right or wrong in what they have done - but it's obvious that the successful strategy is one of promoting both derivative works, while retaining a considerable amount of control over quality and types of derivative works. Hence, licensing.