HTML5: mixed signals

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

HTML5: mixed signals

** Clarence P Martin ** via use-livecode
I just recieved an e-mail from LiveCode central offering me a licence
for HTML5
for $299/year.

And that seems 'normal' considering my Indy licence does NOT include a
licence for HTML5.

BUT: the Community version allowed me to build an HTML5 thing.

That also seems a bit arsy-versy.

Richmond.
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTML5: mixed signals

** Clarence P Martin ** via use-livecode
Um. Like every other platform for LiveCode, there is an open source Community version of HTML5. Not seeing the problem here? You pay for commercial, closed source. You use Community free and share your code.

Regards,

Heather


> On 28 Jul 2017, at 12:07, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I just recieved an e-mail from LiveCode central offering me a licence for HTML5
> for $299/year.
>
> And that seems 'normal' considering my Indy licence does NOT include a licence for HTML5.
>
> BUT: the Community version allowed me to build an HTML5 thing.
>
> That also seems a bit arsy-versy.
>
> Richmond.
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTML5: mixed signals

** Clarence P Martin ** via use-livecode
Well, that is reasonably obvious . . .

Presumably (?) that means that HTML5 things hived-off the Community
version of LiveCode are in readable Java-script and may be opened
and edited as such,

while the version of HTML5 available for $299/year hives-off protected code?

Richmond.

On 7/28/17 2:39 pm, Heather Laine via use-livecode wrote:

> Um. Like every other platform for LiveCode, there is an open source Community version of HTML5. Not seeing the problem here? You pay for commercial, closed source. You use Community free and share your code.
>
> Regards,
>
> Heather
>
>
>> On 28 Jul 2017, at 12:07, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I just recieved an e-mail from LiveCode central offering me a licence for HTML5
>> for $299/year.
>>
>> And that seems 'normal' considering my Indy licence does NOT include a licence for HTML5.
>>
>> BUT: the Community version allowed me to build an HTML5 thing.
>>
>> That also seems a bit arsy-versy.
>>
>> Richmond.
>> _______________________________________________
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTML5: mixed signals

** Clarence P Martin ** via use-livecode
No, that means, that you have to release your source code to the public when using the community version, while you don´t have to do it when you have a commercial license.

Matthias

> Am 28.07.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode <[hidden email]>:
>
> Well, that is reasonably obvious . . .
>
> Presumably (?) that means that HTML5 things hived-off the Community version of LiveCode are in readable Java-script and may be opened
> and edited as such,
>
> while the version of HTML5 available for $299/year hives-off protected code?
>
> Richmond.
>
> On 7/28/17 2:39 pm, Heather Laine via use-livecode wrote:
>> Um. Like every other platform for LiveCode, there is an open source Community version of HTML5. Not seeing the problem here? You pay for commercial, closed source. You use Community free and share your code.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Heather
>>
>>
>>> On 28 Jul 2017, at 12:07, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I just recieved an e-mail from LiveCode central offering me a licence for HTML5
>>> for $299/year.
>>>
>>> And that seems 'normal' considering my Indy licence does NOT include a licence for HTML5.
>>>
>>> BUT: the Community version allowed me to build an HTML5 thing.
>>>
>>> That also seems a bit arsy-versy.
>>>
>>> Richmond.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> use-livecode mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTML5: mixed signals

** Clarence P Martin ** via use-livecode
In reply to this post by ** Clarence P Martin ** via use-livecode
*** The following is how I judge this, not based on any 'official document'. ***

Depends a little bit upon what you are doing. The javascript part of the calling
web page is always accessible, no matter the license. So, important parts that
you have as javascript in the standalone's webpage are protected by the license
you select for that, e.g. an MIT-license.

With an Indy version you can make it more difficult (but *not* disable) to
download the standalone.zip, i.e. avoid the download-source-link.

*** But with an HTML5 license only you can password protect the source code (your
scripts) of the standalone. That's the essential effect of the HTML5-license ***

For example I have one script-protected HTML5 standalone: "EasyCrop"
( = selecting by a BezierCurve tool, available on hh.on-rev.com/html5/ )
Just try to hack it ...
All others there have accessible scripts, but you have first to know how to
download the <standalone>.zip that contains the source (= the "Indy-effect").

With the community version you are obliged to have a download-source-link (it's
generated at bottom right of the standalone canvas) and your scripts are *not*
password-protected.

> Matthias wrote:
> No, that means, that you have to release your source code to the public when using the
> community version, while you don´t have to do it when you have a commercial license.
> Richmondwrote:
> > Well, that is reasonably obvious . . .
> > Presumably (?) that means that HTML5 things hived-off the Community version of LiveCode
> > are in readable Java-script and may be opened  and edited as such,
> > while the version of HTML5 available for $299/year hives-off protected code?
> >
> > Heather wrote:
> >> Um. Like every other platform for LiveCode, there is an open source Community version
> >> of HTML5. Not seeing the problem here? You pay for commercial, closed source. You use
> >> Community free and share your code.
> >>> Richmond Mathewson wrote:
> >>> I just recieved an e-mail from LiveCode central offering me a licence for HTML5
> >>> for $299/year.
> >>> And that seems 'normal' considering my Indy licence does NOT include a licence for HTML5.
> >>> BUT: the Community version allowed me to build an HTML5 thing.
> >>> That also seems a bit arsy-versy.

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTML5: mixed signals

** Clarence P Martin ** via use-livecode
Hermann has the 'the right' of it here.

Basically it is important to remember that just because you *might* be
able to see source-code it doesn't mean you have the right to copy, use
or do anything with it. If there is no license attached to it, or if
there is not a clear declaration of a license under which you are
receiving it then it is not yours, you cannot touch it, you cannot use
it. If you do, then you could find yourself being subjected to a
copyright-related law suit (depending on how litigious the owner of the
copyright of the source code is). (Generally for very small 'snippets',
there is no problem, it is only significant and/or complete works under
which this could be enforced, in general).

If you use the community version, then you are not just obliged, but you
are ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED (by the GPL) to make the full source of the
application you are conveying available UNDER THE GPL (our HTML5
standalone builder makes this easy - as it does it for you :)). This
isn't optional, it is part of the agreement you make by using the GPL
licensed community version in the first place. If you do not do this,
then you are breaking that agreement and in so doing your right to use
the GPL software from which it originated (LiveCode in this case) is
(legally speaking) terminated.

If you use the commercial version, then there are generally no
restrictions on what license you may convey your applications or source
code under. It is reasonable to assume, with the absence of a license,
that if you give someone a software application that they are allowed to
run it. However, that is about as far as you can assume. The receiver
has no right to use any part of the source-code they may or may not see
(this is protected under copyright - the author* of the source-code of
an app is the copyright holder) in any way. So being able to see source
code does not imply a right of use, modification, distribution or indeed
anything. Indeed - even the right to run received software is
necessarily a given (just an implied right, else why would you send
someone it?) - this is why you should always attach a license to all
software you distribute it, explaining the allowed bounds of use by the
receiver.

Of course, the commercial version has password protection built-in, so
you can hide the source of your commercial apps from prying eyes to give
you a level of physical protection; and not just legal. (You have the
legal protection, regardless).

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

* It is really important to note that in the UK, and most other
countries, if you write code during periods of time you are being paid
for by your employer, then the copyright is implicitly owned by the
company *and not* you. Consulting work is a little more grey - which is
why it is important that you agree the terms of copyright ownership as
part of the contract discussion. Typically this is structured as 'the
copyright of code specific to the client project is owned by the client'
but 'any library code not specific to the client which the consultant
has built up to enable her/him to do his work is licensed under a
perpetual license to the client'. Of course, this kind of thing very
much depends on the client - a client is perfectly within their rights
to ask that all code in a project is copyright them... However, then it
is just a question of cost - i.e. if they can afford to pay for that to
be the case!

--
Mark Waddingham ~ [hidden email] ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTML5: mixed signals

** Clarence P Martin ** via use-livecode
Oops - I forgot to say 'I am not a laywer but'... At the start of this.

I should say that most of this stuff is pretty standard, in general as
long as you always use attach a license to your commercial works, and
always follow the requirements of the GPL then you don't have to worry
about these things too much.

However, if something comes up where it *doesn't* seem entirely
clear-cut, particularly if the works involved are significant, or the
money involved is significant (for some definition of significant) it is
well worth consulting an actual physical lawyer to make sure you aren't
accidentally stepping on a mine you did not see!

Warmest Regards

Mark.

On 2017-07-28 16:32, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:

> Hermann has the 'the right' of it here.
>
> Basically it is important to remember that just because you *might* be
> able to see source-code it doesn't mean you have the right to copy,
> use or do anything with it. If there is no license attached to it, or
> if there is not a clear declaration of a license under which you are
> receiving it then it is not yours, you cannot touch it, you cannot use
> it. If you do, then you could find yourself being subjected to a
> copyright-related law suit (depending on how litigious the owner of
> the copyright of the source code is). (Generally for very small
> 'snippets', there is no problem, it is only significant and/or
> complete works under which this could be enforced, in general).
>
> If you use the community version, then you are not just obliged, but
> you are ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED (by the GPL) to make the full source of
> the application you are conveying available UNDER THE GPL (our HTML5
> standalone builder makes this easy - as it does it for you :)). This
> isn't optional, it is part of the agreement you make by using the GPL
> licensed community version in the first place. If you do not do this,
> then you are breaking that agreement and in so doing your right to use
> the GPL software from which it originated (LiveCode in this case) is
> (legally speaking) terminated.
>
> If you use the commercial version, then there are generally no
> restrictions on what license you may convey your applications or
> source code under. It is reasonable to assume, with the absence of a
> license, that if you give someone a software application that they are
> allowed to run it. However, that is about as far as you can assume.
> The receiver has no right to use any part of the source-code they may
> or may not see (this is protected under copyright - the author* of the
> source-code of an app is the copyright holder) in any way. So being
> able to see source code does not imply a right of use, modification,
> distribution or indeed anything. Indeed - even the right to run
> received software is necessarily a given (just an implied right, else
> why would you send someone it?) - this is why you should always attach
> a license to all software you distribute it, explaining the allowed
> bounds of use by the receiver.
>
> Of course, the commercial version has password protection built-in, so
> you can hide the source of your commercial apps from prying eyes to
> give you a level of physical protection; and not just legal. (You have
> the legal protection, regardless).
>
> Warmest Regards,
>
> Mark.
>
> * It is really important to note that in the UK, and most other
> countries, if you write code during periods of time you are being paid
> for by your employer, then the copyright is implicitly owned by the
> company *and not* you. Consulting work is a little more grey - which
> is why it is important that you agree the terms of copyright ownership
> as part of the contract discussion. Typically this is structured as
> 'the copyright of code specific to the client project is owned by the
> client' but 'any library code not specific to the client which the
> consultant has built up to enable her/him to do his work is licensed
> under a perpetual license to the client'. Of course, this kind of
> thing very much depends on the client - a client is perfectly within
> their rights to ask that all code in a project is copyright them...
> However, then it is just a question of cost - i.e. if they can afford
> to pay for that to be the case!

--
Mark Waddingham ~ [hidden email] ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTML5: mixed signals

** Clarence P Martin ** via use-livecode
On 2017-07-28 16:36, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
> Oops - I forgot to say 'I am not a laywer but'... At the start of this.
>
> I should say that most of this stuff is pretty standard, in general as
> long as you always use attach a license to your commercial works, and
> always follow the requirements of the GPL then you don't have to worry
> about these things too much.

Should have said 'OR the requirements of the GPL' (i.e. attach a
suitable license to your works if you are using commercial; in the case
of community, you have to attach the GPL as that is what the GPL
requires you to do!)

Right - I'm going to stop answering myself now. Promise ;)

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

--
Mark Waddingham ~ [hidden email] ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTML5: mixed signals

** Clarence P Martin ** via use-livecode
In reply to this post by ** Clarence P Martin ** via use-livecode


On 7/28/17 5:32 pm, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> * It is really important to note that in the UK, and most other
> countries, if you write code during periods of time you are being paid
> for by your employer, then the copyright is implicitly owned by the
> company *and not* you.

<snip>

recently, over here: http://community.computingatschool.org.uk/door

there was a discussion to this end:

when I was working at the University of St. Andrews I made 2 RR/LC
standalones for Chinese and Janapese students to practise English sounds,
at home, in my own time . . .

. . . when I left I asked about this and it was understood that as those
programs were made in my own time on my own computer they were mine,
although as I had left copies on the server of the University they were
entitled to full use of them.

It turns out that teachers who make software at home, in their own time,
do NOT own the copyright to their work if they are under contract to schools
unless this has been explicitly "sorted out" in advance . . .

a situation that, frankly, stinks, especially as this is NOT during a
period of time for which you are being paid for by your employer.

Richmond.


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTML5: mixed signals

** Clarence P Martin ** via use-livecode
On 2017-07-28 19:49, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode wrote:
> It turns out that teachers who make software at home, in their own
> time, do NOT own the copyright to their work if they are under
> contract to schools
> unless this has been explicitly "sorted out" in advance . . .
>
> a situation that, frankly, stinks, especially as this is NOT during a
> period of time for which you are being paid for by your employer.

This does sound familiar - it is probably worth everyone checking the
fine detail of their contracts in this regard.

I honestly can't remember if (things done at home are your employers
too) that is a presumption of contract/IP law (i.e. doesn't require
explicit wording in a contract); or whether it is something which has to
be explicitly enumerated.

The issue here is actually one of IP and knowledge-in-environment. Let's
say you have a programmer which is working for a company which is doing
really bleeding-edge stuff X. The only reason that programmer knows
anything about X is because he is working for that company. Programmer
goes home, and starts working on stuff in their own time using the
knowledge they have about X (or have learnt about X due to exposure).
The company has to protect itself - and in this case, the company would
be seen to own the copyright on what the programmer has done (as far as
I understand it).

The reason is simple. The programmer is using knowledge and ideas at
home which he did not develop himself - he is using the IP of the
company of which he is part of to do them. He does not own that IP, so
he does not own any derived works of that IP (regardless of where / when
/ how he derived said works).

Upshot - best not to do work on things at home which are using anything
which requires knowledge and ideas you would only been exposed to whilst
at work, unless you don't mind it being owned by the company you work
for because it probably will be from the point of any court presiding
over a case in that fashion, should it come up.

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

--
Mark Waddingham ~ [hidden email] ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTML5: mixed signals

** Clarence P Martin ** via use-livecode
Ooer . . . and how, pray tell, does one tease out what one learnt in one
loaction from what one learnt in another?

I was teaching some kiddos 2 weeks agao and showed one of them a stack
of mine; and he said, "That's a silly
way to do that." and then showed me what he thougth was a better way to
do it.
His way wasn't better, it was about as silly as my method; BUT his
pointing the problem out made me see that it was silly and a way to
do the thing I wanted to do in a way that wasn't silly.

OK, OK, I bought him an ice-cream

Richmond.

On 7/28/17 9:32 pm, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:

> On 2017-07-28 19:49, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode wrote:
>> It turns out that teachers who make software at home, in their own
>> time, do NOT own the copyright to their work if they are under
>> contract to schools
>> unless this has been explicitly "sorted out" in advance . . .
>>
>> a situation that, frankly, stinks, especially as this is NOT during a
>> period of time for which you are being paid for by your employer.
>
> This does sound familiar - it is probably worth everyone checking the
> fine detail of their contracts in this regard.
>
> I honestly can't remember if (things done at home are your employers
> too) that is a presumption of contract/IP law (i.e. doesn't require
> explicit wording in a contract); or whether it is something which has
> to be explicitly enumerated.
>
> The issue here is actually one of IP and knowledge-in-environment.
> Let's say you have a programmer which is working for a company which
> is doing really bleeding-edge stuff X. The only reason that programmer
> knows anything about X is because he is working for that company.
> Programmer goes home, and starts working on stuff in their own time
> using the knowledge they have about X (or have learnt about X due to
> exposure). The company has to protect itself - and in this case, the
> company would be seen to own the copyright on what the programmer has
> done (as far as I understand it).
>
> The reason is simple. The programmer is using knowledge and ideas at
> home which he did not develop himself - he is using the IP of the
> company of which he is part of to do them. He does not own that IP, so
> he does not own any derived works of that IP (regardless of where /
> when / how he derived said works).
>
> Upshot - best not to do work on things at home which are using
> anything which requires knowledge and ideas you would only been
> exposed to whilst at work, unless you don't mind it being owned by the
> company you work for because it probably will be from the point of any
> court presiding over a case in that fashion, should it come up.
>
> Warmest Regards,
>
> Mark.
>

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTML5: mixed signals

** Clarence P Martin ** via use-livecode
On 2017-07-28 20:40, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode wrote:
> Ooer . . . and how, pray tell, does one tease out what one learnt in
> one loaction from what one learnt in another?

I appreciate that in the realm of teaching (the example you gave) the
area is a little grey.

However, in the area of computing then it really isn't that grey, and
companies ensure that it is absolutely black-and-white by writing things
into the contracts of their employees explicitly.

For example, the acceleratedRendering mode of the engine uses a very
specific method of doing things - it conjoined several ideas together
which did not (at the time) exist in any open-source product that I
could find (if it had, I would have been able to probably use that and
not have to write it myself!).

So, let's say one of my staff had (after seeing and reading the code)
gone off and written their own version and tried to sell it. We would
have had a good argument to say that they had stolen our IP. Indeed,
that staff member would have had to prove that they had acquired the
knowledge to replicate the functionality from somewhere else or could
have replicated it without seeing our code. They probably would have
found it EXCEPTIONALLY difficult to convince a court of this.

So, in generality what you are saying is perhaps not possible. However,
in pretty much every (very) specific case it is.

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

P.S. I'm not saying this has happened, nor that there is anything
particular special about acceleratedRendering mode. Just that it is a
specific example of a small piece of well-defined IP we held (before
going open-source) which made a good thought experiment.

--
Mark Waddingham ~ [hidden email] ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTML5: mixed signals

** Clarence P Martin ** via use-livecode
In reply to this post by ** Clarence P Martin ** via use-livecode
What an unfortunate way of looking at things, because what knowledge do ANY of us have that we developed "on our own"? Any program I write I use knowledge I "developed" from any number of sources. Should they all have a claim on what I do?

For this to really work, the knowledge would have to be of the nature that only the company and those employed by the company is privy to. Even this is shady. What if it is a way to write queries that no one else uses or has thought of? If I employ that in my personal apps does the company own my work?

This is why all lawyers (barring any who subscribe to this list) ought to be dragged through the mud and run out of town.

Bob S


> On Jul 28, 2017, at 11:32 , Mark Waddingham via use-livecode <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The reason is simple. The programmer is using knowledge and ideas at home which he did not develop himself - he is using the IP of the company of which he is part of to do them. He does not own that IP, so he does not own any derived works of that IP (regardless of where / when / how he derived said works).


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTML5: mixed signals

** Clarence P Martin ** via use-livecode
Again this is general and not specific. The case Richmond put forward is very much a case of over-reach from my point of view (it is quite possible that there was something in his contract there - probably obscurely worded, or it was the universities lawyers interpretation of statute).

I remember hearing about such things a few years ago in the UK with regard education - I didn't say I agreed with it :)

This is why contracts are important, there are there to protect both employer and employee - whether it be in the case of consultants, or full-time employ in a company. When we do consulting type work we always clearly define the IP and copyright assignments of what we produce - we don't sign until both sides are happy.

There's also a different between abstract principals and concrete deliverables. Hence the 'wars' over the validity of software patents (as an idea).

A tangible thing which does something is a little different from the abstract ideas it embodies. Most countries are still struggling to find out where the line is.

Then there are some schools of thought that say that patents in general are hurting innovation (they were evolved initially to help ensure it) others which still think they are vital. Go figure.

We live in wonderful, imperfect, grey world :)

Mark.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 28 Jul 2017, at 13:45, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> What an unfortunate way of looking at things, because what knowledge do ANY of us have that we developed "on our own"? Any program I write I use knowledge I "developed" from any number of sources. Should they all have a claim on what I do?
>
> For this to really work, the knowledge would have to be of the nature that only the company and those employed by the company is privy to. Even this is shady. What if it is a way to write queries that no one else uses or has thought of? If I employ that in my personal apps does the company own my work?
>
> This is why all lawyers (barring any who subscribe to this list) ought to be dragged through the mud and run out of town.
>
> Bob S
>
>
>> On Jul 28, 2017, at 11:32 , Mark Waddingham via use-livecode <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> The reason is simple. The programmer is using knowledge and ideas at home which he did not develop himself - he is using the IP of the company of which he is part of to do them. He does not own that IP, so he does not own any derived works of that IP (regardless of where / when / how he derived said works).
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTML5: mixed signals

** Clarence P Martin ** via use-livecode
Sorry I didn't mean it was an unfortunate way for you specifically to see things, I also meant generally how things are perceived by those who litigate such matters. You must pay closer attention to what I am thinking. ;-)

Bob S


> On Jul 28, 2017, at 14:14 , Mark Waddingham via use-livecode <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Again this is general and not specific. The case Richmond put forward is very much a case of over-reach from my point of view (it is quite possible that there was something in his contract there - probably obscurely worded, or it was the universities lawyers interpretation of statute).
>
> I remember hearing about such things a few years ago in the UK with regard education - I didn't say I agreed with it :)


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTML5: mixed signals

** Clarence P Martin ** via use-livecode
Hehe - well I wasn't entirely sure I had managed to abstract what I think about such things compared to pragmatic reality.

I also seem to be suffering a touch of sun stroke - so my 'tilt at windmills' level is slightly higher than normal ;)

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

P.S. The last person to suffer me with sunstroke and the somewhat odd effects it can have on the mind and this communication was Richard Gaskin - after me, Kevin and he spent a night in tents in the Mojave desert!

Sent from my iPhone

> On 28 Jul 2017, at 15:10, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Sorry I didn't mean it was an unfortunate way for you specifically to see things, I also meant generally how things are perceived by those who litigate such matters. You must pay closer attention to what I am thinking. ;-)
>
> Bob S
>
>
>> On Jul 28, 2017, at 14:14 , Mark Waddingham via use-livecode <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Again this is general and not specific. The case Richmond put forward is very much a case of over-reach from my point of view (it is quite possible that there was something in his contract there - probably obscurely worded, or it was the universities lawyers interpretation of statute).
>>
>> I remember hearing about such things a few years ago in the UK with regard education - I didn't say I agreed with it :)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Loading...