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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

"All modifications are copyrighted to their respective owners."

Nothing here is public domain unless otherwise stated.

[tamarian]

Originally Posted by Link14716

"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]

Originally Posted by tamarian

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by tamarian

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.