Change of Licensing from Version 2 (Cancelled)

ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

DonationCoder.com Software > Circle Dock

<< < (17/21) > >>

Markham:
Icon Orbit

Orbit Dock

OrbiDock
-wraith808 (August 05, 2010, 09:21 PM)
--- End quote ---

Orbit Dock was a fore-runner to Circle Dock and inspired Eric Wong to design his program. In fact, his (C# coded) releases all included DLLs (compiled libraries) taken straight from Orbit Dock. My v1 Release was the first Circle Dock release that doesn't include any of that code.

Circle Dock does use one or two third-party libraries but we have assiduously checked their licenses to see if there're any restrictions about their usage in commercial or non-commercial software. There are no such restrictions.

Circle Dock's new name might be in Welsh: "Cylch Penfro" (Circle Dock), "Ddoc Cylch" (Dock of Circles) and "Cylch Doc" (Circle Dock) are all Welsh for "Circle Dock". Welsh, however, is a mutating language, hence the different forms which depend on how the name is used. The first form would be used as a 'standalone' name, the other forms would be used when the name appears in a sentence. That could be awfully confusing for users, so maybe not!

Mark

scancode:
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)
--- End quote ---

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
--- End quote ---

I do not feel that I misquoted anything from Eric's original license agreement ??? :huh:
-sgtevmckay (August 05, 2010, 03:15 PM)
--- End quote ---

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.
--- End quote ---

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)
--- End quote ---

That quote was pretty selectively picked. The paragraph above it reads:

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.
--- End quote ---

That means you can charge for it, but the program is still GPL'd.
:two:

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)
--- End quote ---

That kind of comments scare me. What happened to the honor system?

I apologize if I sounded a little too harsh in my previous posts.
Rock on guys!

PS: I still don't get why the commercial binary with sourcecode release is that troublesome >.>

phitsc:
PS: I still don't get why the commercial binary with sourcecode release is that troublesome >.>
-scancode (August 06, 2010, 06:40 AM)
--- End quote ---

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)
--- End quote ---

scancode:
PS: I still don't get why the commercial binary with sourcecode release is that troublesome >.>
-scancode (August 06, 2010, 06:40 AM)
--- End quote ---

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)
--- End quote ---
-phitsc (August 06, 2010, 06:50 AM)
--- End quote ---

That individual is actually doing the same CD is doing. They take GPL code, modify it, try to sell it and keep it closed source. Why is it wrong for them, then?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version