All off topic discussions go here. Everything from the funny thing your cat did to your favorite tv shows. Non-programming computer questions are ok too.
I am the owner of a DOS-Based GUI that features a web browser, email client, webserver, and other general desktop apps. I just noticed today some guy is hosting my project on a live cd. So I emailed him and told him to remove my stuff. Then I emailed his hosting provider and told them what was going on. My project is closed source freeware, with distribution rights going to only me.
So, did I do the right thing? I've never in my life had someone do something like this. He didn't ask me permission to do any of this. I didn't post anything on my site saying that re-distribution was against my policy, but I also didn't post anything saying it was allowed either. Don't you need explicit permission to redistribute?
AFAIK, all rights are reserved in most places automatically. (I'm not a lawyer, however, and the specifics of Canadian copyright law are not at all familiar to me.)
However, is there really an actual reason to be doing this? I mean, your project is freeware. Saying he 'stole' files by distributing them makes what he was doing seem a whole lot worse.
Even if he does remove it, he can just download it from your site during the installation process of his CD, or by some other process. It seems rather pointless...
I seem to always disagree with you for some reason...
I seem to always disagree with you for some reason...
Oh well..
The reason he wants it is because his project is similar, but he hasn't figured out how to develop networking applications. But I suppose I'll have to change my license and make sure it's in BIG BOLD letters on my site. But what kind of license should I use? I don't want users to pay for it, it's good, but not THAT good. I'm not sure what else I could do to protect it.
PS.
The guy emailed me back and said he would remove my stuff.
* Copyright (c) 2008, Andrew Boehringer
* All rights reserved.
*
* You may freely use Ikon for personal use only. Commercial use requires
* a license from the author. Distribution of Ikon in ANY form is explicitly
* denied to everyone but the author himself. By using Ikon you
* agree to all terms and conditions of this license.
*
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY Andrew Boehringer ''AS IS'' AND ANY
* EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
* WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
* DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL Andrew Boehringer BE LIABLE FOR ANY
* DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
* (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
* LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
* ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
* (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
* SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
You can't blame the user though, if you provided no terms for use/distribution.. what can you expect?
Well, the fact that I stated my program was Freeware, I should have suspected someone would think this meant it was okay to copy it and make it available. My understanding of freeware simply means that the program can be downloaded and used freely.
Used freely does not mean making your own distribution out of it.
[edit]
I just went through my forums and realized that the guy did read (and post to) one of my topics regarding my source and license. In that post I stated I did not want it redistributed by others. Now I know this guy has no defense for his actions.
[/edit]
kubeos wrote:My understanding of freeware simply means that the program can be downloaded and used freely.
Just think about it. That's exactly what he did.
private use and public redistribution are very different things. I believe unless specified otherwise, the author holds the rights of distribution and is the only person who can say otherwise.
kubeos wrote:My understanding of freeware simply means that the program can be downloaded and used freely.
Just think about it. That's exactly what he did.
private use and public redistribution are very different things. I believe unless specified otherwise, the author holds the rights of distribution and is the only person who can say otherwise.
Yeah, unless the author says so, (s)he is the only person who should be allowed to distribute their software.
-=100th post=-
Solar wrote:It keeps stunning me how friendly we - as a community - are towards people who start programming "their first OS" who don't even have a solid understanding of pointers, their compiler, or how a OS is structured.
kubeos wrote:My understanding of freeware simply means that the program can be downloaded and used freely.
Just think about it. That's exactly what he did.
private use and public redistribution are very different things. I believe unless specified otherwise, the author holds the rights of distribution and is the only person who can say otherwise.
Sure, private use. But that was never mentioned, right?
