OSDev.org

Hello，everyone .
now ，I am write a hobby os ，it has be support minix1 file system. an IDE driver , tty.

https://coding.net/u/liuxiaofeng/p/firekylin/git

firekylin wrote:Hello，everyone .
now ，I am write a hobby os ，it has be support minix1 file system. an IDE driver , tty.

https://github.com/ximo-os/firekylin.git

Hi,

- I'm sorry if I offend you, but with that english you aren't going to get contributers any time soon. You should learn proper english.
- Your code is technically copyrighted to you, without any open-sourceness.
- Your code has to be copyrighed to someone that actually exists, like

Linux Torvalds

and not

linust

.

TheRussianFail wrote:- Your code has to be copyrighed to someone that actually exists, like

Linux Torvalds

Ok, Microsoft Gates.

TheRussianFail wrote:

firekylin wrote:Hello，everyone .
now ，I am write a hobby os ，it has be support minix1 file system. an IDE driver , tty.

https://github.com/ximo-os/firekylin.git

Hi,

- I'm sorry if I offend you, but with that english you aren't going to get contributers any time soon. You should learn proper english.
- Your code is technically copyrighted to you, without any open-sourceness.
- Your code has to be copyrighed to someone that actually exists, like

Linux Torvalds

and not

linust

.

I am a chinese ,and I am very poor in English. I do not want to learn more English.

but , I really don't know does your mean . if it copyrighted to me , it can not open-source.

mikegonta wrote:

TheRussianFail wrote:- Your code has to be copyrighed to someone that actually exists, like

Linux Torvalds

Ok, Microsoft Gates.

ROFLMAO

mikegonta wrote:

TheRussianFail wrote:- Your code has to be copyrighed to someone that actually exists, like

Linux Torvalds

Ok, Microsoft Gates.

No, no, no. Willows Henry "Bill" Gates III.I for Workgroups.

Portions of your code, which you are claiming copyright to, are very similar to existing code. For example, the header file "minix_fs.h". Not only do you use the same name as existing header files but you also use the same names for many variables and structures in this file.

Now I realize that the status of header files is a little different to pure code files, and that "fair usage" is far laxer with them, but usage is different from claiming copyright.

I think you would be advised to review all of your files - header and code - to determine whether you have copied any part of them from elsewhere. If so, you need to acknowledge this and not claim copyright on the whole file. It would probably be easier to just use one of the common licences - BSD licence is my favourite - and not try to claim copyright on code that, let's face it, people are unlikely to want to rip off.

iansjack wrote:Portions of your code, which you are claiming copyright to, are very similar to existing code. For example, the header file "minix_fs.h". Not only do you use the same name as existing header files but you also use the same names for many variables and structures in this file.

Now I realize that the status of header files is a little different to pure code files, and that "fair usage" is far laxer with them, but usage is different from claiming copyright.

I think you would be advised to review all of your files - header and code - to determine whether you have copied any part of them from elsewhere. If so, you need to acknowledge this and not claim copyright on the whole file. It would probably be easier to just use one of the common licences - BSD licence is my favourite - and not try to claim copyright on code that, let's face it, people are unlikely to want to rip off.

If not claim copyright on the whole file, but how to claim copyright on part of file. use bsd licence can avoid this .
use a license , should be put them in all files at first line, and they are too mare lines , I don't link this.

You should put copyright notices at the head of the file acknowledging all copyright holders. Or just don't bother claiming copyright.

This is one (only one) of the reasons that most people use one of the open source licences, particularly as their code is nothing special that others would want to make money from.

You should also carefully check the code that you are copying for any licensing notices; it may well specify that derivative works have to abide by the same licence that it does.

TheRussianFail wrote:- Your code has to be copyrighed to someone that actually exists, like ...

At least in the US, this isn't true - you can copyright something under a pseudonym. I don't really know much about EU copyright laws, or whether pseudonyms are accepted internationally, though...

Just about every nation on Earth is a signatory to the Berne Convention on Copyright which specifically allows copyright to be assigned to a pseudonym. (Article 15)

iansjack wrote:Just about every nation on Earth is a signatory to the Berne Convention on Copyright which specifically allows copyright to be assigned to a pseudonym. (Article 15)

Really? Thats cool. My bad then. But then who has the copyright, the pseudonym or the actual person who made the content?

The person associated with the pseudonym, I presume. (i.e. The person who created the pseudonym.)

Copyright doesn't have to belong to the author. It can be assigned to another person or, more commonly, company or institution.

Copyright to pseudonyms are cool. Companies who would buy your work under a licence will try to find you,fail,and you wont get that 1M$ contract.

Boris wrote:Copyright to pseudonyms are cool. Companies who would buy your work under a licence will try to find you,fail,and you wont get that 1M$ contract.

Presumably the pseudonym will include contact details, just like a real name would. One can hardly find someone by name alone.