i am sorry if i am hurting anyone! but i guess if modifications are made and that too remarkable modifications he should be proud to sell it on flashden and i dont think..a great coder like michael would feel bad about it. or even fd would object it… this is just an opinion guys..i feel nothing wrong if he has put in efforts and has created another version and wants to sell and this is also not bad if he is approaching someone outside flashden…its between the person who receives the email and who sends the email again its a personal view i am not on either sideIf the basis of his work is the work of somebody else, even if he made huge modifications, it’s a copyright infringement. The used basis is not his property.
I don’t like being terrorists. Take that word off and it should be fine.
Orignal Author Protected Anti-Crook Bomb Fullscreen Template w/Protective goggles and gas mask transitions.
If the basis of his work is the work of somebody else, even if he made huge modifications, it’s a copyright infringement. The used basis is not his property.
That’s what I said… basically. And I knew that when I asked you for that team up on that advanced news viewer I put together.
yep, you did what you had to do not to be a web-gangsta
I’ve studied copy rights a lot as a contract C++/.NET developer, and I’ll admit, I really don’t know a lot about it – it is a hugely complicated arena. I’d like to try and give a less complicated overview of how I protect my relevant works. So here goes…
Step one: License your work
Creative Commons license wrappers are better for creative content, they do wrap GPL and LGPL too. The list in brief is on the CC page linked above, to the right.
Important: Although it is preferred to use GPL over LGPL for software libraries, AS class packages for example – the GPL will not permit resale or resale inclusion however LGPL does permit resale, but requires modification only be released under GPL without any further consent of the original author(s)
There are a vast number of licenses you guys can use, I mention the GNU mandates simply because I’ve studied them enough to know what is significant.
However, GPL /LGPL require you as the author to provide sourcecode or a written offer, valid for 3 months – whereby the end user can request a copy of the source code free of charge.
Although you wouldn’t strictly speaking LGPL an entire flashden upload, you can LGPL the classes you create that ship with it.
For the creatives amongst you… stick with ordinary CC license schemes, you must allow commercial use but you may disallow modification.
ED: If anything above regarding non-modification of ‘creative’ projects constitutes a violation of any flashden.net ToS then I’d welcome any correction. But from what I can gather, if your (the contributor) licensing is compatible with the current flashden legal statement then your are fully entitled to do so.
For the coders amongst you… in accordance with the current flashden policy, your right to include existing licensed work is protected – just as you may include 3rd party elements in projects that permit commercial reuse (licenses including MIT , LGPL… ) you are therefore allowed by default to license your own classes in a like-for-like manner.
Also, don’t be offended by the tone of the ‘GPL over LGPL ’ link, it might make you feel fragile around GNU – but it is written as it is, in the hopes of promoting free software. If you are taking time to read it, you’ll come to find the philosophy isn’t as abrasive or Orwellian as it begins.
So, without getting too deep into legal text, the CC licenses, CC wrapper for LGPL and the GNU LGPL are to the best of my knowledge compatible with flashden. Other areas of interest might be BSD , MIT, MPL and variants of each; if anyone is curious.
As ever, if in doubt, consult the flashden staff.
As developers we should always include examples with source code, but sometimes I think we forget that our classes are not our examples.
If you’ve built a dynamite library, and you want to release it without fear of it being stolen – then compiling is the best protection.
Of course, AS2 is far easier to decompile than AS3 – so nothing is completely fool proof (not in any language). But if you have ever tried to get readable code from AS3 release built bytecode, you’ll have probably realised the effort spent making it friendly again is just as well spent creating it in the first place.
Another tip, if you are compiling libraries: put stubs of the license in trace() statements in your creators. If anyone gets a copy via another channel, when they debug anything they’ll see your notice.
You should namespace your packages in compiled clips too, just another simple reminder to anyone who gets a copy in future that it came from net.flashden.yourusername
I hope this post has helped everyone relax a little, even if there are underhand tacticians frequenting the den – employing ideas like those above will help ensure we’re all legally protected, and dissuade people after a quick buck, by making there light fingers work a whole lot harder.
Great post ourben , thanks for the info