If a coder has seemingly abandoned their plugin, and I've fixed it for 4.0

[Smiler2009]

Originally Posted by BlackJacket

The last i checked, you cannot copyright a language. HTML/PHP is a coding language. You also cannot copyright the format of of the mod. IE the end result, etc.


From the U.S. Copyright law -

"(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work"
]

You shoot down your own argument right there. the Mod IS the original work of authorship which the copyright covers. System and method of operation don't apply, that's like trying to say you are copyrighting the syphon principal for a cistern, you can copyright the drawings of the cistern but not the syphon principal.

The copyright covers the actual mod itself, the intellectual property, the code written to make the whole. If you want to write a mod that does an identical job but written in a markedly different way then you'll have no copyright worries. If you copy the code verbatim you are breaking the law even if you write it all out by hand yourself.

Ask Microsoft if it minds you distributing DOS or Windows3.11, both obsolete, they surely wouldn't mind....

Edit: You wanted cites....

Have a look at this US software copyright attorney website which puts in laymans terms how software is protected internationally

http://www.softwareprotection.com/copyright.htm

Jeff.

[osayidan]

You can copyright a release of code, but you can not copyright the objective of said code or the method in which it is achieved.

If this were true, there would only be one forum software written for php.

So nothing is stopping people from taking an abandoned mod, studying it, and making an improved/updated version using the concepts the original describes. There no technology patents in question here so it's not like reverse engineering an iPhone and having apple chase after you.

So why not make a better version of a mod instead of changing a few lines of code? Too lazy? Don't do it.

[BlackJacket]

Originally Posted by Smiler2009

You shoot down your own argument right there. the Mod IS the original work of authorship which the copyright covers. System and method of operation don't apply, that's like trying to say you are copyrighting the syphon principal for a cistern, you can copyright the drawings of the cistern but not the syphon principal.

The copyright covers the actual mod itself, the intellectual property, the code written to make the whole. If you want to write a mod that does an identical job but written in a markedly different way then you'll have no copyright worries. If you copy the code verbatim you are breaking the law even if you write it all out by hand yourself.

Ask Microsoft if it minds you distributing DOS or Windows3.11, both obsolete, they surely wouldn't mind....

Edit: You wanted cites....

Have a look at this US software copyright attorney website which puts in laymans terms how software is protected internationally

http://www.softwareprotection.com/copyright.htm

Jeff.

You miss understood what i said. My argument was you cannot copyright the scripting language. I'm saying the O.P. can create the same mod using the same scripting language that has the exact same output without being threatened by copyright laws.

PHP is a method of operation.

Originally Posted by osayidan

You can copyright a release of code, but you can not copyright the objective of said code or the method in which it is achieved.

If this were true, there would only be one forum software written for php.

So nothing is stopping people from taking an abandoned mod, studying it, and making an improved/updated version using the concepts the original describes. There no technology patents in question here so it's not like reverse engineering an iPhone and having apple chase after you.

So why not make a better version of a mod instead of changing a few lines of code? Too lazy? Don't do it.

This is what i was trying to say.

[TNCclubman]

Does it matter that these mods are free, and not being changed and re sold, but given away free?

Like if I post a cool html code, and someone says, hey, I added an extra html code to it to add an extra table, here it is, ... actually, I just realized that happens on all the mods here in the discussions under the mod thread.

So looks like if he doesnt release it as a seperate post, but just posts under the original thread, as a "hey, I updated this for 4.0, here it is.." is this not happening through out the site already?

[War.Frog]

I don't think arguing the copyright issue is something vb.org wants to do, or needs to do. The issue here is stagnant mods - they're clearly a problem and they're something I believe vb.org DOES need to try and get a handle on and discourage.

While the developers quite rightly want the popularity of their mod reflected in installed counts and ratings ("no support without clicking installed"), there is no incentive or disincentive whatsoever for a developer to indicate "Supported" on his/her new modification - even if they have no intention of ever supporting it.

That needs to change. While users are provided encouragement and incentives to mark a developer's modification "installed", developers are under no similar obligations to their users. I think developers who abandon their modifications or fail to provide support on "supported" modifications after X period of time should earn strikes against that mod, reflected in the mod and the developer's profile.

Almost like an eBay-style buyer-beware, if Developer A releases a three "supported" mods and then abandons his/her installed base, they earn strikes against their mods that provide fair warning to the community of the developer's reputation.

That way, even if Developer A releases a killer hack, people may be reluctant to download and install it in their production environments if that Developer's support/activity rating is in the tank.

Installed/downloaded counts simply don't tell that story - they only tell us how big the problem can be.

[Zachery]

Originally Posted by War.Frog

I don't think arguing the copyright issue is something vb.org wants to do, or needs to do. The issue here is stagnant mods - they're clearly a problem and they're something I believe vb.org DOES need to try and get a handle on and discourage.

While the developers quite rightly want the popularity of their mod reflected in installed counts and ratings ("no support without clicking installed"), there is no incentive or disincentive whatsoever for a developer to indicate "Supported" on his/her new modification - even if they have no intention of ever supporting it.

That needs to change. While users are provided encouragement and incentives to mark a developer's modification "installed", developers are under no similar obligations to their users. I think developers who abandon their modifications or fail to provide support on "supported" modifications after X period of time should earn strikes against that mod, reflected in the mod and the developer's profile.

Almost like an eBay-style buyer-beware, if Developer A releases a three "supported" mods and then abandons his/her installed base, they earn strikes against their mods that provide fair warning to the community of the developer's reputation.

That way, even if Developer A releases a killer hack, people may be reluctant to download and install it in their production environments if that Developer's support/activity rating is in the tank.

Installed/downloaded counts simply don't tell that story - they only tell us how big the problem can be.

Nothing has ever stoped anyone from writing new code to replace a mod. For example we had Lesanes Store hack, Matthew wrote uShop/uCash, a similiar concept, possibly the same goal, but in the end different code.

There have been other cases of this: the numerous vB index pages in vB2/3 (MyvBIndex, vBindex, etc), Quick replys (numerous), Welcome Panels, Shoutboxes. Every few years we see new people with the same idea's doing their own things, no one is stoping them from doing their own things. What we (the community) are doing is saying you can't take their code (legally) and release it as your own. You can take their code and update it for yourself, nothing stoping you at all on this level.

If you release a modification that copys the concept, no one around here is likely to go all crazy and sue you*. Hopefully the two authors will fuel each other to make better code, features, etc or they can work together to do the same. You won't be the first, or last to do it.

If you see a mod that has been abandoned and really want to help, write a new addon to take place of the old one.


*It hasn't happened yet anyway.

[TalkVirginia]

Originally Posted by War.Frog

I don't think arguing the copyright issue is something vb.org wants to do, or needs to do. The issue here is stagnant mods - they're clearly a problem and they're something I believe vb.org DOES need to try and get a handle on and discourage.

While the developers quite rightly want the popularity of their mod reflected in installed counts and ratings ("no support without clicking installed"), there is no incentive or disincentive whatsoever for a developer to indicate "Supported" on his/her new modification - even if they have no intention of ever supporting it.

That needs to change. While users are provided encouragement and incentives to mark a developer's modification "installed", developers are under no similar obligations to their users. I think developers who abandon their modifications or fail to provide support on "supported" modifications after X period of time should earn strikes against that mod, reflected in the mod and the developer's profile.

Almost like an eBay-style buyer-beware, if Developer A releases a three "supported" mods and then abandons his/her installed base, they earn strikes against their mods that provide fair warning to the community of the developer's reputation.

That way, even if Developer A releases a killer hack, people may be reluctant to download and install it in their production environments if that Developer's support/activity rating is in the tank.

Installed/downloaded counts simply don't tell that story - they only tell us how big the problem can be.

I love this idea!! War.Frog has a good point here.

[Zachery]

Almost like an eBay-style buyer-beware, if Developer A releases a three "supported" mods and then abandons his/her installed base, they earn strikes against their mods that provide fair warning to the community of the developer's reputation.

So now were punishing people for having things to do outside of their hobby, seems unfair. You haven't ever released a single addon have you?

Supported means different things to different users, Geeky Designs supports its modifications by fixing bugs, we don't currently go out of our way to support everything every user asks.

One last thing to add: People here write addons because they wanted to, wrote it for themselfs, wrote it for a client who wanted to release it. Releasing an addon here doesn't pay our bills, or tuck us in bed at night. There are 168 hours in the week, 64 of these are likely consumed by sleep. This now leaves us with 104 workable hours for the week. Assuming we work a normal 9-5 job, or at the very least 40 hours a week we're down to 64 hours. How much time do you propose an author spends on vBulletin.org suppoorting their modifications that they are not paid to support? This 64 hours that are left assumes no commute time, no family time, no time to cook food or take showers, or do daily chores.

[TheLastSuperman]

I can see how some have different perceptions and opinions on this however it's rather simple to understand, arguing a point on the other hand leads to 3 pages

1) You can't copy the code 100% and find/replace the creators name with yours not even 99% (unless they marked it as "Re-Usable code" as previously posted).
2) You can have a similar idea and code your own version of a mod up as long as the majority of it differs as some things you can't simply recode for instance an actual php function (http://www.w3schools.com/PHP/php_functions.asp) may have to be called with the same code but a writename does not always have to call the name "John Doe" now does it? Nope
3) Just be respectful, that's why someone became ticked off and invented copyrights... someone flat our jacked their idea and did not give credit... innovation by instinct on the other hand is always welcome as long as it's a new and different way to make the world turn.

[TalkVirginia]

Originally Posted by Zachery

So now were punishing people for having things to do outside of their hobby, seems unfair. You haven't ever released a single addon have you?

Supported means different things to different users, Geeky Designs supports its modifications by fixing bugs, we don't currently go out of our way to support everything every user asks.

One last thing to add: People here write addons because they wanted to, wrote it for themselfs, wrote it for a client who wanted to release it. Releasing an addon here doesn't pay our bills, or tuck us in bed at night. There are 168 hours in the week, 64 of these are likely consumed by sleep. This now leaves us with 104 workable hours for the week. Assuming we work a normal 9-5 job, or at the very least 40 hours a week we're down to 64 hours. How much time do you propose an author spends on vBulletin.org suppoorting their modifications that they are not paid to support? This 64 hours that are left assumes no commute time, no family time, no time to cook food or take showers, or do daily chores.

If someone is going to write a mod or addon, I would expect them to support it until such a time they can't. There have been quite a few mods that I've used in the past that I've really enjoyed and the author has abandoned them over time. Seems like there should be some type of clause that states if an addon or mod is not updated or supported for a period of time it automatically becomes re-usable code, or rendered obsolete and taken off the site. Just my $0.02 cents worth..