Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Ruby > GUI With Ruby

Reply
Thread Tools

GUI With Ruby

 
 
Gary Wright
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-10-2007

On Mar 10, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Timothy Hunter wrote:

> Albert Ng wrote:
>> Um, how close is the BSD license to this "my code, don't need to
>> quote me,
>> do whatever you want with it, but it's consequences are all yours"
>> license?
>>

> The text of the BSD license is here: http://www.opensource.org/
> licenses/bsd-license.php.


Are there any lawyers out there who can explain the fascination with
all-caps
text in legal documents? Is there a legal interpretation of all-caps
text that
is different than mixed-case text?

Gary Wright




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Timothy Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-10-2007
Albert Ng wrote:
> Thanks Hunter, very informative
> I must say, that was a considerably non-painful read for a software
> license
>
> On 3/10/07, Timothy Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> Albert Ng wrote:
>> > Um, how close is the BSD license to this "my code, don't need to quote
>> > me,
>> > do whatever you want with it, but it's consequences are all yours"
>> > license?
>> >

>> The text of the BSD license is here:
>> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php.
>>
>>

>

It is very close to the license I use for RMagick. My personal
interpretation is "do what you like with this software, but don't lie
and say you wrote it."

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Eleanor McHugh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-11-2007
On 10 Mar 2007, at 19:00, Albert Ng wrote:
> Um, how close is the BSD license to this "my code, don't need to
> quote me,
> do whatever you want with it, but it's consequences are all yours"
> license?


Well there's always the "public domain", i.e. no license and
absolutely no need for attribution. Of course that does require the
author to give up their right to place arbitrary restrictions on the
dissemination of their work...


Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason



 
Reply With Quote
 
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-11-2007
Eleanor McHugh wrote:
> On 10 Mar 2007, at 19:00, Albert Ng wrote:
>> Um, how close is the BSD license to this "my code, don't need to
>> quote me,
>> do whatever you want with it, but it's consequences are all yours"
>> license?

>
> Well there's always the "public domain", i.e. no license and
> absolutely no need for attribution. Of course that does require the
> author to give up their right to place arbitrary restrictions on the
> dissemination of their work...
>
>
> Ellie
>
> Eleanor McHugh
> Games With Brains
> ----
> raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
>
>
>
>

Public domain is close to what I want ... however, I think the open
source gang has some problems with "public domain". And I want something
that says if someone figures out a way to destroy a city with my code
that I'm not the one who gets tried for war crimes.


--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.


 
Reply With Quote
 
I. P.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-11-2007
Eleanor McHugh DE I. P.

EM> absolutely no need for attribution.
It's correct only for USA (and probably few other countries). In most
jurisdiction public domain works require attribution.

--
I. P. 2007-03-11T19:36


 
Reply With Quote
 
Eleanor McHugh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-11-2007
On 11 Mar 2007, at 16:39, I. P. wrote:
> EM> absolutely no need for attribution.
> It's correct only for USA (and probably few other countries). In most
> jurisdiction public domain works require attribution.


Interesting. So in those jurisdictions a widely distributed anonymous
work wouldn't count as public domain?

Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason



 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Dober
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-11-2007
On 3/10/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> John Joyce wrote:
> > Actually, Qt has gotten a lot better, and does work on Windows and OS
> > X and linux with claimed native look and feel.
> > Your mileage may vary and licensing is not free.

> Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding about the Qt license is this -- when you start a project, you decide which license it will use -- commercial or open source -- and the project is forever licensed that way. Say you pick open source. You download the open source version, incorporate it into your project, and you can never convert the project to a commercial one at that point.
>
> Similarly, if you start a commercial project, buy the commercial version of Qt, etc., you can never convert the project to open source. I'm not sure how this fits with the Ruby license.
>
> My own personal opinion is that most "open source" licenses are junk, with the GPL being one of the worst. I think it's high time someone came up with an open source license that says something like this:
>
> "This software is copyright 2007 M. Edward Borasky. Here is the source. You can do anything you want with it, but if you hurt someone with it, it's your fault and not mine. If you make any money with it, it's your money and not mine. If you do something with it that makes you famous, it's your fame and not mine. And I can't prevent you from compiling it and distributing the binaries without distributing the source, so you can do that too."
>
> --
> M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
> http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/
>
> If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.
>
>
>

I am quite surprised to hear that from you. I always have seen you as
a practical guy and I intend that as a compliment.
Now the exact wording of your licence simply means that someone can
take your code away from you (theoretically not because you can prove
prior art by definition) but you might need a lawyer etc.

I feel that the GPL is not *easy* to use but I also feel that it is important.
I am nervous about the BSD or Ruby licence, although they are
convenient for sure - in the short run.
I have the feeling that they are naive and that the wonderful things
they do not really
protect might be taken away from the community one day.

But I am quite a pessimist.

Cheers
Robert

--
We have not succeeded in answering all of our questions.
In fact, in some ways, we are more confused than ever.
But we feel we are confused on a higher level and about more important things.
-Anonymous

 
Reply With Quote
 
Timothy Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-11-2007
Eleanor McHugh wrote:
> On 11 Mar 2007, at 16:39, I. P. wrote:
>> EM> absolutely no need for attribution.
>> It's correct only for USA (and probably few other countries). In most
>> jurisdiction public domain works require attribution.

>
> Interesting. So in those jurisdictions a widely distributed anonymous
> work wouldn't count as public domain?
>
> Ellie
>
> Eleanor McHugh
> Games With Brains
> ----
> raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
>
>
>

To be honest, in the U.S. I would not consider anonymous works to be in
the public domain unless there was some very visible and carefully
worded statement that the work was in the public domain, such as seen
here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/. The reason is
that in the U.S. all "creative" works (including software) are
automatically protected by copyright, even if the copyright holder is
not known. This of course produces huge numbers of abandoned works that
can't be used and is amazingly stupid, but it's the law.

 
Reply With Quote
 
I. P.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-11-2007
Eleanor McHugh DE I. P.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.

>> It's correct only for USA (and probably few other countries). In most
>> jurisdiction public domain works require attribution.

EM> Interesting. So in those jurisdictions a widely distributed anonymous
EM> work wouldn't count as public domain?
US law defines public domain as (according to [1]) "the Work may be
freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built
upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any purpose, commercial or
non-commercial, and in any way, including by methods that have not yet
been invented or conceived"

Berne Convention [2] standing as base for international copyright law
(signed by 162 countries [3]) had defined so called "Moral Rights"
[2.1]. This rights are independent from author's rights to sell,
modify and so on ("economical rights") which she can pass to other
entities.

Moral Rights are assigned automatically by the fact of creating an
artistic work. By creating you receive right "to claim authorship of
the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other
modification <...> the said work <...>" [2.1]. This rights are
inalienable: you can't reject to be under protection. US has neglected
concept of inalienable Moral Rights.

So US public domain works are not necessary public domain, e. g., in
Europe.

Now to anonymous work.

As mentioned above, moral right are assigned automatically regardless
of author. Anonymous (and pseudonymous) works are protected by the
same laws with one exception: if author's name can't be determined
with confidence then this work is protected for 50 years since it's
been lawfully made available to public. [2.2]

If anonymous/pseudonymous author has claimed his identity he receive
standard protection for his life and 50 years after (this period can
be extended in his country).

---
[1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
[2] BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF LITERARY AND ARTISTIC
WORKS: http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html
[2.1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/6bis.html
[2.2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/7.html
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rne_Convention

--
I. P. 2007-03-11T22:05


 
Reply With Quote
 
Chad Perrin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-11-2007
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 01:38:09AM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> Eleanor McHugh wrote:
> >On 10 Mar 2007, at 19:00, Albert Ng wrote:
> >>Um, how close is the BSD license to this "my code, don't need to
> >>quote me,
> >>do whatever you want with it, but it's consequences are all yours"
> >>license?

> >
> >Well there's always the "public domain", i.e. no license and
> >absolutely no need for attribution. Of course that does require the
> >author to give up their right to place arbitrary restrictions on the
> >dissemination of their work...
> >

> Public domain is close to what I want ... however, I think the open
> source gang has some problems with "public domain". And I want something
> that says if someone figures out a way to destroy a city with my code
> that I'm not the one who gets tried for war crimes.


That disclaimer is something you can just attach to the code. If
someone later strips the disclaimer and passes it on, THAT person is the
only one liable for the uses of the code (if there's any liability to be
had), generally speaking. Disclaimers are not particular to licenses,
and can be treated as separate entities (in at least most jurisdictions;
keep in mind that I'm speaking from a USian perspective).

The major reason open source advocates dislike public domain is that
openness of the source is not enforceable in later iterations. For
instance, a book in the public domain can, with a few modifications such
as adding a nifty red cover and a preface, become a copyrighted work,
copyrighted by the guy that wrote the preface and added the cover rather
than by the guy who wrote the book itself.

Another, less common complaint (at least, less common in the US) is that
in some jurisdictions there's no such thing as "public domain". France,
for instance, suffers some shortcomings in this regard: you can't
completely free your code (or whatever) from any legal encumbrances at
all whatsoever except by asserting copyright and licensing it with a
statement like "No rights reserved."

My personal preference for licensing is effectively a public domain
duplicating license, plus strong inheritance so that all derivative
works must be similarly licensed. I also tend to prefer strong
protections against plagiarism. That's why I created the CCD CopyWrite
license that I use for basically everything I do where I'm not required
by contract (or other circumstances) to license things otherwise. I'd
just release everything I wrote into the public domain if I wasn't
concerned about people creating derivative works and taking them OUT of
the public domain.

I'm *not* a fan of *forced* distribution models of open source
licensing, by the way -- in case you were curious.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"A script is what you give the actors. A program
is what you give the audience." - Larry Wall

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Baseline GUI Architecture (was: Baseline GUI Prototype?) Stefan Ram Java 3 11-20-2011 02:18 AM
PyGTK GUI update without signals from GUI Andrew Lapidas Python 0 04-12-2008 11:07 PM
[Gui] Which GUI is available with Ruby? Flaab Mrlinux Ruby 3 11-15-2006 11:44 PM
GUI - GUI value passing paul.foreman Java 5 10-25-2004 08:06 AM
[PY GUI] interest function in python GUI(wxpython,pyqt) program.wxpython,pyqt ulysses Python 4 10-22-2003 03:28 PM



Advertisments