Releasing a unique hack mostly using other people's stuff

[tamarian]

Originally Posted by Erwin

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]

Originally Posted by tamarian

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]

Originally Posted by Erwin

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

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]

Originally Posted by nexialys

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:
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 (vB-germany users click here) 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.

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]

Originally Posted by nexialys

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]

Originally Posted by nexialys

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.