26
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I've always wanted to be punished by a software application! 
why not:
Take a screenshot, slowly invert it,
Repeat.
I read the original request as just saying it needs to display a reasonably updating view of real screen but not that it had to be constantly refreshed every second or so.-mouser (December 19, 2010, 03:42 PM)
neat.-mouser (December 19, 2010, 03:19 PM)
maybe what's needed is to move across the entire screen, inverting everything and then undoing it, etc., so that pixels stay changed for a prolonged period.-mouser (December 19, 2010, 03:19 PM)
ps. only affects primary monitor, for what it's worth.-mouser (December 19, 2010, 03:19 PM)
It wouldn't be wrong if they would start from Eric's initial CD code, then add tons of features to it, then get rid of all of Eric's code, and then charge money for that.Nope, it wouldn't be wrong. Key part is "get rid of all of Eric's code". Complete rewrite != GPL.-phitsc (August 06, 2010, 07:00 AM)
It wouldn't be wrong if they would start from Markham's code, add no features to it, then get rid of all of Eric's and Markham's code, and then charge money for that.Same as above.-phitsc (August 06, 2010, 07:00 AM)
PS: I still don't get why the commercial binary with sourcecode release is that troublesome >.>-scancode (August 06, 2010, 06:40 AM)
because of this:1.) We have found multiple instances of Programs that are either slightly modified versions, or exact versions of Circle Dock and Eric Wong's code. These versions are not made open source, even after approaching the "Programmers" in question, and in most cases there were attached fees for the software. In some cases Up to $50 -/+ USD
2.) Shortly after the release of v.1 and before I could get the source code up on the wikidot site. Markham and I were sent e-mails requesting the source code immediately. This individual was brilliant enough to use the e-mail for his Program for sale, which turned out to be Circle Dock under a different name. This individual not only retained a close source code, but openly admitted that is was "My Modified version of Circle Dock"
Markham and I immediately launched into some home work, and we have actually found several instances of this happening.
Although we approached these "Vendors" in an attempt to make them comply with the conditions of the copyright/left License, I was ignored at best and given terse communications at worst.
Apparently only Eric Wong can take action against a violation of his Copyright and license. Many of these individuals feel that Eric will never return, and so have proceeded to do as they will.
Some of these are now using Markhams code in their releases.-sgtevmckay (August 05, 2010, 03:13 PM)-phitsc (August 06, 2010, 06:50 AM)
This sounds incredibly appealing, to me anyways, But I found nothing in the license that would support this. I need to go back and re-read again-sgtevmckay (August 05, 2010, 03:15 PM)
If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then distribute and sell that new program commercially?
You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL.
These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own.-http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLCommercially
I do not feel that I misquoted anything from Eric's original license agreement ???-sgtevmckay (August 05, 2010, 03:15 PM)
Please observe the following quotes from Eric's License.You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.
This is not derivative taken out of context, but a complete paragraph.
I have not modified this in any way. I am too lazy.
But I request that you research the license again, before jumping towards incorrect conclusions, again no insult is meant by this statement.-sgtevmckay (August 03, 2010, 11:34 PM)
You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you
receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice;
keep intact all notices stating that this License and any
non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code;
keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all
recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.
GPL type and derivative licenses offer no real protection to the author unless the author is prepared and can afford to enforce it. Let me illustrate that with a hypothetical example. Suppose I take the source to one of your programs, tinker with it slightly, possibly change its name and then start to sell it on a UK-hosted site. As I live in the UK and therefore outside the jurisdiction of an American Court of Law, your only option is to sue me in an English High Court.-Markham (August 06, 2010, 01:41 AM)
FWIW there is nothing in the GPL that requires that compiled binaries be provided free of charge. There are several GPL'd products (and some Linux distros) that charge for their binaries in order to offset expenses (or possibly even make some money) without violating the letter (or the spirit) of the GPL so long as some provision has been made to supply source code to whoever requests it.
And while there will always be a certain few who will scream about charging for GPL-anything, nobody who actually understands what GPL is about would have any problem with it.
-40hz (August 05, 2010, 02:31 PM)
If I take a dead GPL'd project, and use that source and project as an inspiration to build the same project, but with my own source, is my project now GPL'd? I don't think so...-wraith808 (August 05, 2010, 08:59 AM)
