code from a book "copyrights"
- Thread starter jinx
- Start date
inglewoodpete
Senior Member
You really need to provide more information on why you want to use the copyrighted code.
My first question would be: is it for your profit or assessment of your school/university grades?
Is the purpose of your project identical to the copyrighted project?
Is the purpose of your project for your education or research? People publish code for others to test, confirm or improve.
My first question would be: is it for your profit or assessment of your school/university grades?
Is the purpose of your project identical to the copyrighted project?
Is the purpose of your project for your education or research? People publish code for others to test, confirm or improve.
jedynakiewicz
Senior Member
Tricky, tricky, the world of copyright. As an author, I have been in the interesting position of my publishers taking successful legal action against someone for breach of copyright from one of my books. It cost the transgressors many thousands in legal fees and damages. Interestingly, as the author who had simply sold the rights to the book to the publisher, I got nothing from the whole legal action and was not actually involved in the the legal process at all. It was handled entirely by the publishers.
Quoting from a book for the purpose of review or critique is generally acceptable; anything else is generally unacceptable. Read the copyright page of the book at the front of the book; this usually indicates what may be done or otherwise. I think you will find that you are extremely limited in what you can do. Posting up code snippets that show a particular method that is used by the author would almost always be in violation of copyright.
Quoting from a book for the purpose of review or critique is generally acceptable; anything else is generally unacceptable. Read the copyright page of the book at the front of the book; this usually indicates what may be done or otherwise. I think you will find that you are extremely limited in what you can do. Posting up code snippets that show a particular method that is used by the author would almost always be in violation of copyright.
@ inglewoodpete
@jedyn in a nut shell thankyou
@sernet
as always soley for one's own amusment.
NA / but it's the use of code not hardware still the code is adepted to best suit my project/s
as well being fun and interesting,
thats why am asking the question over copyright,i could stripe out the code bits ,but then other's reading the code could be stumped on the flow it.
@jedyn in a nut shell thankyou
@sernet
i personally believe "credit where's it due" i for one like giving link's to source's where possible if i use code of the forum " which i do " it may not be an easy case to ask some author's contacting deadlinks of old code one reasons.
sadly yes copyrights lawyers are chasing the forum's like an amblance for violation
Then why publish the book .. to blow your own horn or?
I totally disagree and believe the "author" would be very hard pressed to successfully pursue a cause of action for the use or the distribution of "code" that has been published in the public domain. At some point in time people just need some common sense. If the "code" is of such importance then it need not be published. Additionally, after a few iterations of code then no one could write any code for any purpose. For example can I copyright the pause, read ADC, etc. and subsequently or a bit bang routine ... just won't hold water.
I also question how many folks have ever recovered much from a copyright case, much less causing the defendants to spend "thousands of dollars" on legal fees and damages. The damages must be proven as well as the originality of the code. This means that anyone can take another's code, use it in their project, publish the project and code and put a copyright mark on the work then collect if it is disrespected or exclude all others for all time from using the essential elements of the code ... I don't think so.
jedynakiewicz
Senior Member
This is the sort of thread that heats up all too rapidly and I don't wish to inflame things but... It is not a question of personal opinion, it IS a question of legality. As I tried to emphasise in my reply, it is usually not the author's call with a book; the author assigns the copyright to the publisher and it is the publishing house that deals with copyright matters from thereon in. I mentioned the case with my own book as an example of the reality of it all; the publisher did seek damages and did achieve them - pretty significantly - and it was settled without actually going to court.
@RexLan; European Copyright law does vary somewhat from USA Copyright law. In the UK there is no requirement for registration or even the presence of a copyright mark; the author of any original literary, artistic, photographic or other creative work automatically owns the copyright to that work unless he assigns it to another; i.e. a publisher. You refer to material that has been "published in the public domain" but that is precisely the area that copyright protects; it limits the rights of the purchaser to personal use restricted to the limits of the copyright that is published at the beginning of the book. Libraries pay a separate royalty for the rights of use for multiple readers. If someone has intellectual rights over a creative work it is generally seen within our society to be only reasonable for them to be able to profit from those rights and that those rights should be protected.
Take a look at the copyright pages in the legal sections of Adobe Inc. software and you will soon see how seriously they protect the rights on their code. And as for copyright cases, well just look at the many cases between several of the big software houses and you will soon see how they chase each other for big dollar settlements over not just straightforward copyright issues but even "look and feel" similarities.
I do understand that it is all a very contentious issue with those who feel that intellectual property should be open to all, but that is simply not the society that we are living in.
@jinx; You are, of course, right. Forums appear now be getting chased over such issues. Your only way of posting up code that has been published in a book is simply to ask the publishers, in writing, if you may. It is possible that they may even welcome the publicity for the book if only a representative element is presented. You may also find that the forum operators may want a copy of the authority from the publishers. But what is the harm in asking? One of these days it may be your code that you are protecting...a code that I hope brings you substantial rewards!
@RexLan; European Copyright law does vary somewhat from USA Copyright law. In the UK there is no requirement for registration or even the presence of a copyright mark; the author of any original literary, artistic, photographic or other creative work automatically owns the copyright to that work unless he assigns it to another; i.e. a publisher. You refer to material that has been "published in the public domain" but that is precisely the area that copyright protects; it limits the rights of the purchaser to personal use restricted to the limits of the copyright that is published at the beginning of the book. Libraries pay a separate royalty for the rights of use for multiple readers. If someone has intellectual rights over a creative work it is generally seen within our society to be only reasonable for them to be able to profit from those rights and that those rights should be protected.
Take a look at the copyright pages in the legal sections of Adobe Inc. software and you will soon see how seriously they protect the rights on their code. And as for copyright cases, well just look at the many cases between several of the big software houses and you will soon see how they chase each other for big dollar settlements over not just straightforward copyright issues but even "look and feel" similarities.
I do understand that it is all a very contentious issue with those who feel that intellectual property should be open to all, but that is simply not the society that we are living in.
@jinx; You are, of course, right. Forums appear now be getting chased over such issues. Your only way of posting up code that has been published in a book is simply to ask the publishers, in writing, if you may. It is possible that they may even welcome the publicity for the book if only a representative element is presented. You may also find that the forum operators may want a copy of the authority from the publishers. But what is the harm in asking? One of these days it may be your code that you are protecting...a code that I hope brings you substantial rewards!
jedynakiewicz
Senior Member
@Jinx; You are absolutely right and you seem to have a pretty good understanding of these issues; I was typing my lengthy last post whilst your post appeared, but you will note that I mentioned the "look and feel" aspect of copyright. Clearly, though no-one is likely to chase up on common bits of PICAXE code for hobby purposes, but if it comes out of a published book it is automatically on a different level. To reiterate one point though, ask the publisher because they may welcome the publicity.
JimPerry
Senior Member
I was in an interesting Copyright situation 30 years ago.
As editor of a book about Microsoft BASIC my company had complete Copyright on the book contents - which was hundreds of pages of comments for the disassembled Microsoft code. But we couldn't actually publish the code as it was obviously Copyrighted by Bill Gates and Co. Readers of the book had to run a disassembler program and print out the code - then tape it into the main book!
When Bill Gates saw the result he told us that it was better comments than he had
As editor of a book about Microsoft BASIC my company had complete Copyright on the book contents - which was hundreds of pages of comments for the disassembled Microsoft code. But we couldn't actually publish the code as it was obviously Copyrighted by Bill Gates and Co. Readers of the book had to run a disassembler program and print out the code - then tape it into the main book!
When Bill Gates saw the result he told us that it was better comments than he had
jedynakiewicz
Senior Member
Those interested in aspects of copyright law in the UK may like to take a look at this report. The same aspect of "look and feel" as would apply to the operation of a software routine as @Jinx highlighted.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/25/Imitated_Image_Copyright_Case
inglewoodpete
Senior Member
All I can say is: Catch me if you can. If you don't want me to read and understand your code then don't publish it. The chances of my application doing exactly the same thing as yours is about nil.
BTW The development of my PICAXE-based iPhone is coming along well. I'm using a lot of ideas I got from Apple. I mean Samsung.
BTW The development of my PICAXE-based iPhone is coming along well. I'm using a lot of ideas I got from Apple. I mean Samsung.
morning:
electric the two books are manual one and two,
now only joking about the books their title's programming and customizing the picaxe,picaxe project for the evil genius both are a really good read for newbie's. i know both author are forum member and it's not alot effect to pm them. mr ron hackett has stated in his book that the mpd software is an opensource project.
electric the two books are manual one and two,
it getting all too easy too track web footprint and then your own isp give's up your id.
lol.
now only joking about the books their title's programming and customizing the picaxe,picaxe project for the evil genius both are a really good read for newbie's. i know both author are forum member and it's not alot effect to pm them. mr ron hackett has stated in his book that the mpd software is an opensource project.
I'm perfectly comfortable playing rip-up-and-retry with anyones code from any source, for my own amusement and education. If it's ever published anywhere, like say on this forum, I'll make an appropriate credit. If I ever make a retail project, the code will be all mine, even if I have to rewrite the whole thing. Simple, but realistic rules I think.
Oh how confusing!
The whole thing confuses me and I assume a little common-sense is used?
Boriz is happy to copy and modify code from any source for his own purposes.
I'm sure that's fair enough as he's not publishing it as his own work.
And if he does publish it here he will , he says, give credit.
You might say that is a free advert for the Author/Publisher but is that enough to get around copyright? I honestly don't know.
Again, where do we draw the line?
If Boriz posted 3 lines then surely no-one would fuss.
But if he posted a whole chapter then people would be right to get a bit chippy.
But if boriz is lifting code and putting it in a commercial product and claiming the code is all his. then Oooh.
Obviously, 'rewriting' would be a good escape in many cases - though IP can include the end results as much as the means.
Though, I have to say, anyone publishing commerically useful code to the Public is asking for trouble.
My next confusion.
After reading most of the thread I dusted off an old book on programming.
Page 1 Copyright:
"No part of this book shall be reproduced...." etc.
Oh my word, does that Copyright statement constitute part of the book?
Have I infringed already?
Sorry, I'm being a little cheeky there.
A few pages into the book we have the usual few lines 'Hello World!' example.
We see this in a thousand publications - so has the author infringed?
I'm being cheeky again but do you get the drift?
As we read on we see that the author suggests trying supplied examples out.
So, has he 'released' that section for use by us to use in any shape?
With programming syntax being fairly fixed it must make it highly likely that people could appear to infringe simply by coincidence.
Obviously as the code gets longer then the stats change, but I assume the lawyers show some common sense? (After they have submitted their invoices).
Surely different 'copying' standards apply for a book on Programming using example code snippets. It's completely different to someone copying a paragraph of pros from my book "A Guide to Copying Without Getting Caught".
The whole thing confuses me and I assume a little common-sense is used?
Boriz is happy to copy and modify code from any source for his own purposes.
I'm sure that's fair enough as he's not publishing it as his own work.
And if he does publish it here he will , he says, give credit.
You might say that is a free advert for the Author/Publisher but is that enough to get around copyright? I honestly don't know.
Again, where do we draw the line?
If Boriz posted 3 lines then surely no-one would fuss.
But if he posted a whole chapter then people would be right to get a bit chippy.
But if boriz is lifting code and putting it in a commercial product and claiming the code is all his. then Oooh.
Obviously, 'rewriting' would be a good escape in many cases - though IP can include the end results as much as the means.
Though, I have to say, anyone publishing commerically useful code to the Public is asking for trouble.
My next confusion.
After reading most of the thread I dusted off an old book on programming.
Page 1 Copyright:
"No part of this book shall be reproduced...." etc.
Oh my word, does that Copyright statement constitute part of the book?
Have I infringed already?
Sorry, I'm being a little cheeky there.
A few pages into the book we have the usual few lines 'Hello World!' example.
We see this in a thousand publications - so has the author infringed?
I'm being cheeky again but do you get the drift?
As we read on we see that the author suggests trying supplied examples out.
So, has he 'released' that section for use by us to use in any shape?
With programming syntax being fairly fixed it must make it highly likely that people could appear to infringe simply by coincidence.
Obviously as the code gets longer then the stats change, but I assume the lawyers show some common sense? (After they have submitted their invoices).
Surely different 'copying' standards apply for a book on Programming using example code snippets. It's completely different to someone copying a paragraph of pros from my book "A Guide to Copying Without Getting Caught".
hippy
Ex-Staff (retired)
They may want you to read and understand what they provide but that's not the same as allowing you to take what they provide to use yourself. The laws on copyright are there to provide that producers of works can indeed do such a thing; provide but still control use.
"If you don't want me to copy it then don't publish it" is automatically saying "if you do publish you must allow me to copy it" and that is against the entire notion of copyright protection. Everyone is entitled to disagree with the notion of copyright and the laws covering it but one cannot simply side-step or ignore them with impunity because of personal opinion.
As this thread demonstrates, most people find the notion of absolute copyright as unacceptable as having no copyright at all so there's always the question of what copyright does cover and what it does not. That's defined by law and convention and in the case of disagreement decided by courts.
Most of the cases cited in this thread are likely covered by legislation or case law because they are fundamental issues. You have to look to the legislation and judgements for guidance. Every case has to be judged on its own merits and you need to assess or seek legal advice as to how any law or case reflects your own use, and even then it may ultimately end up in court to be decided.
That's why no one can give any absolute answer, just opinions, because it's in the hands of those who hold the copyright, lawyers and the courts.
Without consent from whom?
So, therefore if I have code with "Main:" as a label I have to get consent from Goeytex?
Besides, i'm sure i've seen that code before 2010, maybe someone else has copyrighted it before?
Did you do a search before claiming it as yours?
This is where being too literal can fall down as shows exactly where it can go a bit pants.
So, therefore if I have code with "Main:" as a label I have to get consent from Goeytex?
Besides, i'm sure i've seen that code before 2010, maybe someone else has copyrighted it before?
Did you do a search before claiming it as yours?
This is where being too literal can fall down as shows exactly where it can go a bit pants.
jedynakiewicz
Senior Member
Okay, this thread is getting a little bit silly...
Copyright is all about protecting ORIGINAL, CREATIVE WORKS; Goeytex's example is neither original nor creative, its elements are in common use and therefore he could not claim any rights to it. However, if he published it in a textbook with a distinctive typeface and layout - one that he had originated - he would own the copyright of that aspect of it, but not the code itself. Similarly, the use of certain colours in packaging can be copyright or registered designs. For example, company logos can be on a certain and distinctive colour background and that will be registered by the designer as a specific PANTONE (TM) colour used in association with a registered typefont.
I woke up this morning to the headlines on the radio that Apple has just won a huge settlement from Samsung over intellectual property and design rights. Samsung's response was reported to be that the court ruling now gave Apple exclusive rights over any oblong with rounded corners! I am sure that some of those commenting in this thread would find aspects of this case quite absurd, but it has cost Samsung £665million (over 1 billion dollars) in settlement. Of course, they are now appealing and in doing so the legal costs mount up once again.
Software code is protected in the USA by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and this defines very clearly many of the areas that are being raised as issues in this thread.
To those who would wish to defy copyright and other intellectual property laws, be aware that it is not just a case for civil courts; the DMCA involves criminal law; even trying to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted material is a criminal offence in the USA.
So enough of the silly "what if I..." stuff. Copyright law is clearly defined, is ratified by international conventions and if you don't like it, well, tough - you can always see what you think of prison! (told you this thread was likely to get heated...I can't find a smiley for "tongue in cheek")
I hope the service providers of this forum understand DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA") which is the bit that would, I think, deal with any copyright infringements that appear on this forum.
Copyright is all about protecting ORIGINAL, CREATIVE WORKS; Goeytex's example is neither original nor creative, its elements are in common use and therefore he could not claim any rights to it. However, if he published it in a textbook with a distinctive typeface and layout - one that he had originated - he would own the copyright of that aspect of it, but not the code itself. Similarly, the use of certain colours in packaging can be copyright or registered designs. For example, company logos can be on a certain and distinctive colour background and that will be registered by the designer as a specific PANTONE (TM) colour used in association with a registered typefont.
I woke up this morning to the headlines on the radio that Apple has just won a huge settlement from Samsung over intellectual property and design rights. Samsung's response was reported to be that the court ruling now gave Apple exclusive rights over any oblong with rounded corners! I am sure that some of those commenting in this thread would find aspects of this case quite absurd, but it has cost Samsung £665million (over 1 billion dollars) in settlement. Of course, they are now appealing and in doing so the legal costs mount up once again.
Software code is protected in the USA by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and this defines very clearly many of the areas that are being raised as issues in this thread.
To those who would wish to defy copyright and other intellectual property laws, be aware that it is not just a case for civil courts; the DMCA involves criminal law; even trying to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted material is a criminal offence in the USA.
So enough of the silly "what if I..." stuff. Copyright law is clearly defined, is ratified by international conventions and if you don't like it, well, tough - you can always see what you think of prison! (told you this thread was likely to get heated...I can't find a smiley for "tongue in cheek")
I hope the service providers of this forum understand DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA") which is the bit that would, I think, deal with any copyright infringements that appear on this forum.
Problem is the issue has run a muck now. The discussion was about using code snippets ... NOT copying projects, books or round corners.
There simply is no way in hot places that anyone can claim a code snippet exclusively their own. Be it published in a book or on the moon it simply is not going to happen.
@jedynakiewicz ... you seem to have some issue with the copyright stuff but it doesn't appear that your observation is in focus with the discussion. We are not talking about stealing someones original work at all, or their publication or their intellectual property which are rightly and correctly protected as hippy indicates.
I'd go so far to say that most all "published code" was derived from other code snippets itself. The completed work is a different matter, but the small pieces are all open source work. Anyone who would subsequently publish the entire code for a product/project and then claim a copyright on it is an idiot.
In the case of Samsung they actually stole patented technology for use in a commercial product. This is at quite a variance with using some code snippets to make that product which I'm confident Apple did originally. Now we have to be careful in the use of "Main" like Dippy says because Goeytex has a copyright on it!
There simply is no way in hot places that anyone can claim a code snippet exclusively their own. Be it published in a book or on the moon it simply is not going to happen.
@jedynakiewicz ... you seem to have some issue with the copyright stuff but it doesn't appear that your observation is in focus with the discussion. We are not talking about stealing someones original work at all, or their publication or their intellectual property which are rightly and correctly protected as hippy indicates.
I'd go so far to say that most all "published code" was derived from other code snippets itself. The completed work is a different matter, but the small pieces are all open source work. Anyone who would subsequently publish the entire code for a product/project and then claim a copyright on it is an idiot.
In the case of Samsung they actually stole patented technology for use in a commercial product. This is at quite a variance with using some code snippets to make that product which I'm confident Apple did originally. Now we have to be careful in the use of "Main" like Dippy says because Goeytex has a copyright on it!
jedynakiewicz
Senior Member
@Rexlan, you seem to have missed my phrase "I can't find a smiley for tongue in cheek..." I was simply trying to address some of the lateral issues that were raised along the way. I think that I gave a cogent reply to the actual focus of the discussion back in post 10. The focus of the thread asks can you copy some book content onto a website and the answer is you cannot but you can ask the publishers if you may do so, it is that easy. As to the rest, well, I didn't start it...but I do find it amusing.
Of course there is no doubt a difference between open source and published code as you say quite correctly.
Oh, and I do think I would disagree with the "muck" aspect, but perhaps it has indeed run amok...
Of course there is no doubt a difference between open source and published code as you say quite correctly.
Oh, and I do think I would disagree with the "muck" aspect, but perhaps it has indeed run amok...
@RexLan, it's not quite as you say:
In the case of Samsung they actually stole patented technology for use in a commercial product.
The phrase is infringed upon Apple intellectual property. A veritable minefield made worse by poor and speculative patenting that on occasions don't stand up to scrutiny because of prior art etc. I think that the EU has got it about right, with no software patents.
In the case of Samsung they actually stole patented technology for use in a commercial product.
The phrase is infringed upon Apple intellectual property. A veritable minefield made worse by poor and speculative patenting that on occasions don't stand up to scrutiny because of prior art etc. I think that the EU has got it about right, with no software patents.
Dippy. "...Surely different 'copying' standards apply for a book on Programming using example code snippets..."
Definition: Example = "A thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule." (Not copyrightable?)
"...Boriz is happy to copy and modify code from any source for his own purposes..."
Please don't put a different spin on my words by generalizing. I said quite specifically 'for my own amusement and education'. That's all.
I rarely (if ever) use whole chunks of other peoples code. If I can't do it myself, then I can't do it. If I can understand the basic method, then I can write my own version. So I do. It's just my personal ethic. I don't particularly expect anyone else to do as me. For example, I published a program on Pyxia IBasic forum that was complete and all mine. But I had consulted another forum member about the mathematics of 2D collisions. He was credited in the code header. Personal ethics.
As for the law. I'll just assume judges are reasonable, even if lawyers aren't.
$1 Billion fine for Samsung? Really?
Definition: Example = "A thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule." (Not copyrightable?)
"...Boriz is happy to copy and modify code from any source for his own purposes..."
Please don't put a different spin on my words by generalizing. I said quite specifically 'for my own amusement and education'. That's all.
I rarely (if ever) use whole chunks of other peoples code. If I can't do it myself, then I can't do it. If I can understand the basic method, then I can write my own version. So I do. It's just my personal ethic. I don't particularly expect anyone else to do as me. For example, I published a program on Pyxia IBasic forum that was complete and all mine. But I had consulted another forum member about the mathematics of 2D collisions. He was credited in the code header. Personal ethics.
As for the law. I'll just assume judges are reasonable, even if lawyers aren't.
$1 Billion fine for Samsung? Really?
My, what an interesting can of worms is international copyright law when placed in the context of the web, code snippets, and just exactly where such infringement might be occurring. On Rev. Ed's. servers, wherever they may be located, (Iceland perhaps, ) wherever such communications have passed through, wherever they may have been downloaded to, whether such code was downloaded by one person as an educational aid, by another as an addition to a commercial product, saved as a data file, or merely as a jpg image of the code.
All in all, a wonderful can of worms.... Ah well, it's all so convoluted my head has begun to hurt and I seem to have lost interest. Sigh.
) wherever such communications have passed through, wherever they may have been downloaded to, whether such code was downloaded by one person as an educational aid, by another as an addition to a commercial product, saved as a data file, or merely as a jpg image of the code.All in all, a wonderful can of worms.... Ah well, it's all so convoluted my head has begun to hurt and I seem to have lost interest. Sigh.
inglewoodpete
Senior Member
With your permission, can I use your can of worms to go fishing? Or is it copyright?
hi,
sorry boris"my code is getting smaller each day". fun aside the coding langauge picaxe basic is derived from another form of basic? is it. given that there or only so many cammands and function."how many ways can you skin a cat". what i learnt from the thread if in doubt then ask the pub/owner for consent.
please all you cat skinners out there please modarate you response for the children reading this thread
on another note on ownership of your creation,have alook at circuit lab user agreament,hidden third way down they take ownership of what ever you create,"my case not problem i,ll us it maybe to so of some basic idea better then an out focus pic".and their say we can do anything we like with. i,ll try and add a link soon
https://www.circuitlab.com/legal/#terms
found it this shocks me,
sorry boris
please remove this as picaxe is a registered trademark licensed to revolution education ltd. by mircochip technonlgy inc.
"my code is getting smaller each day". fun aside the coding langauge picaxe basic is derived from another form of basic? is it. given that there or only so many cammands and function."how many ways can you skin a cat". what i learnt from the thread if in doubt then ask the pub/owner for consent.please all you cat skinners out there please modarate you response for the children reading this thread
on another note on ownership of your creation,have alook at circuit lab user agreament,hidden third way down they take ownership of what ever you create,"my case not problem i,ll us it maybe to so of some basic idea better then an out focus pic".and their say we can do anything we like with. i,ll try and add a link soon
https://www.circuitlab.com/legal/#terms
found it this shocks me,
Last edited:
AndyGadget
Senior Member
So it looks like we can't write a line of code without upsetting someone, but the syntax errors are MINE, ALL MINE . . . BWAHAHAH!!!!
hippy
Ex-Staff (retired)
I think the expressed shock comes from reading it that NerdKits are giving themselves the power to take whatever you provide and can use it for themselves however they like and that's just tough. Mwaahaha!
I think that is a misinterpretation; to me it seems NerdKits are saying no more than you are granting them the right to carry your content without the threat of being sued for copyright infringement by yourself in doing so and are putting in place the very thing that would stop people publishing code examples and then saying other people couldn't use those.
While the licence you must agree to grant in publishing does give away rights, those would be the rights you would have to give away to allow NerdKits to publish on your behalf and to allow others to use your work in the way you intend. So it's not so much in taking away rights you want to keep, but ensuring the licensing you intended to grant is in place.
Legal language can be hard to decipher. The key phrase here is in what you are granting; a "non-exclusive license". That means you are granting them rights but not handing your rights over to them, are not surrendering any other rights you have. The rights you are granting being limited to facilitating what you intended in making the work available through them.
mrburnette
Senior Member
I bet I beat you to this one: FOR X = 1 TO 1O
So it looks like we can't write a line of code without upsetting someone, but the syntax errors are MINE, ALL MINE . . . BWAHAHAH!!!!
(And staring at it for hours, going nuts trying to discover the error.)
I imagine that Copyright law is evolving slowly though case law etc. Interestingly The USA used to rip off European authors wholesale whilst seeking to protect their own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States
"The act did not regulate other kinds of writings, such as musical compositions or newspapers and specifically noted that it did not prohibit copying the works of foreign authors."
A pretty dynamic can of worms where everyone with a vested interest seeks to gain the upper hand through the manipulation of the legal system.
What happens if Apple V Samsung in the US has a Samsung V Apple in Europe or the Far East, where the opposite is the opinion of the courts. The rounded corners on a rectangle type of argument could see Apple iphone etc. being blocked for sale in parts of the world.
"Windows 8-style user interface" just doesn't have the same ring as it's former name. It would seem that due diligence in Redmond missed a trick when searching for the original name. It tarnishes the image that they were trying to conjure up, but I would have thought that a new name would have been forthcoming to regain the momentum of the sales push. So it seems that you have to be very careful even when thinking about product names. Globalisation has of course merely added a new dimension to the minefield.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States
"The act did not regulate other kinds of writings, such as musical compositions or newspapers and specifically noted that it did not prohibit copying the works of foreign authors."
A pretty dynamic can of worms where everyone with a vested interest seeks to gain the upper hand through the manipulation of the legal system.
What happens if Apple V Samsung in the US has a Samsung V Apple in Europe or the Far East, where the opposite is the opinion of the courts. The rounded corners on a rectangle type of argument could see Apple iphone etc. being blocked for sale in parts of the world.
"Windows 8-style user interface" just doesn't have the same ring as it's former name. It would seem that due diligence in Redmond missed a trick when searching for the original name. It tarnishes the image that they were trying to conjure up, but I would have thought that a new name would have been forthcoming to regain the momentum of the sales push. So it seems that you have to be very careful even when thinking about product names. Globalisation has of course merely added a new dimension to the minefield.