With VB 3.5 released for so many month now...

[Xenon]

Well, the code is releases for the purpose of personal use, and personal use includes appliing changes to it, but it doesn't allow rereleases.

of course ideas cannot be copyrighted normally, but it's still a matter of "good behaviour" not to directly copy an idea.

[harmor19]

I will not look through vb2 or vb3 hacks and port them out of respect.
The only exception I would make is that the author isn't active anymore.

I would start the hack from scratch (maybe look at the vb2 or vb3 hack to figure out an algorithm) but not go change it line by line and making it compatible with vb3.5

[Reeve of shinra]

Thats why I think we need this:
https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/showthread.php?t=105357

[tehste]

i think what we need is members to understand the licensing of IP (intel. property). There is nothing to stop us using a GPL with hacks. So hack authors should release their hacks under any license they see fit. I personally don't want to release any of my code as open source. My hacks usually include license information in the readme: Even if it is as simple as: no modifications unless I ok them.
It's a clear statement and there is no room for interpritation. One of my hacks was being 'ported' without my permision. The readme contained an equivalent to that statement. And members complained when I said to the coder that what he is doing is wrong. Respect IP and the license that IP is provided by.

If I subscribed to an open source project I wouldn't be as possessive over code. But creating addons takes time and people who use find/replace to port an addon won't do it properly.

[Borgs8472]

Maybe I was too specific. I'd like to see people make 3.5 versions of 3.0 hacks without having to ask any permissions, even if the product looks/acts the same.

[Brad]

If you rewrite the code yourself then you do not have to ask for permission from the original author. However it's always preferred that you ask the author, especially if their hack inspired you to write your own.

I for one have allowed anyone that asks to port/translate anything I have released over the years. I know most all off my releases are small things, but I'm always happy to pass the project on to someone that wants to take it over.

To be honest once I release something I consider it done unless there is a large bug in it. I don't spend too much time on any one thing...it's the problem that has caused me to end many projects before they were finished.

[Om3R]

Nice :d :d :d :d

[Borgs8472]

Originally Posted by Brad

If you rewrite the code yourself then you do not have to ask for permission from the original author. However it's always preferred that you ask the author, especially if their hack inspired you to write your own.

I for one have allowed anyone that asks to port/translate anything I have released over the years. I know most all off my releases are small things, but I'm always happy to pass the project on to someone that wants to take it over.

To be honest once I release something I consider it done unless there is a large bug in it. I don't spend too much time on any one thing...it's the problem that has caused me to end many projects before they were finished.

Fair enough. However the 'post in the origonal hack thread to get it ported' rules is a hinderance in that case, because no one will port other people's stuff in most cases.

[Chris M]

Originally Posted by Borgs8472

Fair enough. However the 'post in the origonal hack thread to get it ported' rules is a hinderance in that case, because no one will port other people's stuff in most cases.

That is to make the author aware that people want it ported to 3.5

Chris

[Borgs8472]

^ ^
yes, but sometimes the author's left the forum.

By the way, this thread is influenced by the 'public display of reputation' and 'reputation tracker' mods I heavily used, in both cases the coders were AWOL and I got them done on paid request.

There's a public 'public display of affection' hack out finally now, but not the other one, asking a non existant coder to port their hack is a very bureucratic and ineffective way of getting a port IMO.