OSDev.org

The Place to Start for Operating System Developers
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 12:29 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:47 am 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:01 pm
Posts: 7612
Location: Germany
I don't think there are any around who contributed to either Wiki who would actually prosecute their "all rights reserved". Usually, the naive belief is that, "if I post it to some forum / wiki, that implies that others can use it freely". Actually, several people were quite surprised when I brought the subject of copyright up over at MT.

As for the PD wording... in some countries (unfortunately including Germany), "releasing into Public Domain" is not possible - you cannot waive your copyright. I solved this for the PDCLib by giving explicit permission "to use, modify and redistribute my contribution with or without giving credit", which is effectively the same. You should perhaps add somesuch to the PD wording, like, "released into PD, where that is not possible, permission is given...".

I hate legalese. :cry:

_________________
Every good solution is obvious once you've found it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:37 pm 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 843
Location: United States
--- [edit] ---
Just wanted to clarify that I am not talking about source code, mathematical aspects, or algorithms.
--------------

I would rather still hold my own interest in my writing work, but not any code used or displayed.

I would not mind www.osdev.org having rights to what I post except to make financial gains other that what is needed to support the central goal of the site.

For example, if I happened to write something really good, and posted it and www.osdev.org or someone used it to make a commercial or private financial gain then I would feel that would be against my consent, but as I said above a profit free organization with a central mission to education people about operating system development would be fine.

I might like to include a collection of my writing in something one day, but would not like to become binded by some legal issues.. Yet, I would like the exception of a non-profit organization having all rights. Quite frankly I do not see why one guy who has a website could not repost what I post on a completely different site as long as no commercial or private gains not related to maintaining the organization of unreasonable value were received from anything directly or indirectly associated with my work.

I would not even mind derivations from my work as long as these derivations had more than at least a seventy-five percent difference of the old work.

If someone posts something of a more individual work then it seems most in the Wiki do not edit it much.

So if someone took my document and chopped it up into four parts and inserted these four parts into a private or commercial work then this would be against my consent because more than seventy-five percent of my original work still resides in the document (albeit in parts).

If someone rewrote seventy-five percent (or more) of my document in their own words then this would be okay for private or commercial work then this would be okay.

It boils down to.. do not sell or make money from what you did not do unless it is for the greater good of operating system development in a non-profit manner (except if it helps support the non-profit organization that is maintaining or holding the work).

So, if www.osdev.org needed to fund it's self and decided to publish something in a private and commercial manner that contained something I did - that fully or partially support _it's_ financial responsibilities then it would be okay as long as it was still a non-profit organization with a central goal to help people learn about operating system development.

I hope this was clear enough to describe my intentions, and if not I can elaborate more. (the code, algorithm, or mathematical aspects I do not care about!)

--edit--
The tutorial code was meant to be copied and could be used in the private and commercial sector, but not the _tutorial_ writing... it is common sense. =)

If the users of the Wiki edit the document until seventy-five percent of the original work no longer remains then guess what? It is yours not mine. If the users of the Wiki include extra material then the extra is whoever s.. not mine, but the original material is mine with regard to the above. If I have to keep a copyright just to make sure my intents are meet then that is the entire purpose of a copyright.

I really hate the idea of these companies swindling their way into all sorts of positions to use free stuff. I actually feel a little weird about the FSF, although they do a lot of good.. I just feel the corporate world is taking a ice cold grip at what they want and everyone should be on guard for it. You also have these idiots locking down technologies and algorithms which I really do not like when they are already implemented in existing things... thats more like taking something you really did not do. I do not mind someone holding a patent or copyright on something they did for a limited amount of time in order to help them secure the value of what they did.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: license wiki public domain
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:35 am 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 843
Location: United States
~ wrote:
I don't think this is a major problem because anyway nobody is going to implement things exactly as shown throughout those tutorials, and that adaptation cannot be prosecuted; large text books already give examples and the author already knows that they will be used to learn and to build a new work base. The only thing the author requests by legal means is not to reproduce (duplicate) its content massively to make profit of it.


A perfect understanding was made here.

~ wrote:
nobody is going to implement things exactly as shown throughout those tutorials


And it would still be a crystal clear understanding if they did implement it exactly as in a tutorial.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: license wiki public domain
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:17 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:48 am
Posts: 214
Kevin McGuire wrote:
~ wrote:
I don't think this is a major problem because anyway nobody is going to implement things exactly as shown throughout those tutorials, and that adaptation cannot be prosecuted; large text books already give examples and the author already knows that they will be used to learn and to build a new work base. The only thing the author requests by legal means is not to reproduce (duplicate) its content massively to make profit of it.


A perfect understanding was made here.
But not a legally sound one. Unless you define "massively" >precisely<, it is not legally valid.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:14 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:37 am
Posts: 514
Location: York, England
Oh yeah i forget to mention my copyright over text i have put on the wiki. It is under my special General Fascist License, and you owe me a £ for every word have written that you have read. I will post the full text of the license, but basically you screwed if you even glance at my contributions :-P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: license wiki public domain
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:47 pm 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 1225
ehird wrote:
Kevin McGuire wrote:
~ wrote:
I don't think this is a major problem because anyway nobody is going to implement things exactly as shown throughout those tutorials, and that adaptation cannot be prosecuted; large text books already give examples and the author already knows that they will be used to learn and to build a new work base. The only thing the author requests by legal means is not to reproduce (duplicate) its content massively to make profit of it.


A perfect understanding was made here.
But not a legally sound one. Unless you define "massively" >precisely<, it is not legally valid.


Anyway, who is prosecuting us? We have made it by ourselves, it's a regular specialized forum with a wiki online and we know without the need of knowing laws that we do it with a general intention of helping and having fun and we aren't relying in copyrights.

There are much more complete and "useful" things than those contained in the resources of this website, so it wouldn't be stolen; it's information widely available put in one same place.




ehird wrote:
Yes but the problem is there's already all rights reservedcontribs in there.


Like it or not, such content will have to be "purged" (NOT the same as "deleted"). But don't alarm, that content can be reworked iteratively until getting something different but that teaches the same things, more ordered and further things.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: license wiki public domain
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:19 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:48 am
Posts: 214
~ wrote:
Anyway, who is prosecuting us? We have made it by ourselves, it's a regular specialized forum with a wiki online and we know without the need of knowing laws that we do it with a general intention of helping and having fun and we aren't relying in copyrights.

There are much more complete and "useful" things than those contained in the resources of this website, so it wouldn't be stolen; it's information widely available put in one same place.

Being prosecuted doesn't matter. Having a wiki with a legally sound license does.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:17 am 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 1225
Well, the work is awaiting for us. But seriously, nobody is prosecuting us and nobody will, we aren't currently in a legal dilemma so we have all we need to keep going...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:56 pm 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:45 am
Posts: 9301
Location: On the balcony, where I can actually keep 1½m distance
Someone fluent in legalese should fill in [wiki]Project:Copyrights[/wiki]

_________________
"Certainly avoid yourself. He is a newbie and might not realize it. You'll hate his code deeply a few years down the road." - Sortie
[ My OS ] [ VDisk/SFS ]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: copyright patent public domain wiki
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:06 pm 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 843
Location: United States
How about instead of ranting about the Wiki in whole, since some of you have such a zealot interest in this, you actually go through it and find what documents are going to pose a problem so we can talk about why or why not it would be a problem? I bet you will not find much, and I also reckon what you can find is trivial and nothing more.

The major finding would be someone who is a thief and would like to copy a bunch of the documents and publish them in a book or collection of those documents or in other words the expression of a idea in writing. The idea is not protected by a copyright, but instead the expression of that idea in writing is. Now how many ways do you think someone could write about one idea? A LOT. TOO MANY. THOUSANDS. However some people might not be that great at writing something and would rather steal it and make money from it.

Plus we have copyrights, patents, and trade secrets. You guys are operating system developers you should care nothing about copyrights. You should care about patents since that is actually used to hold rights to a method. Such as a tutorial I wrote called "Quick And Dirt Virtual Address Space Scheme". That should actually have to classified under a copyright, and a patent. The copyright would encompass the express of that idea in writing, while the patent would hold the method or scheme not really the idea.

Quote:
Public domain comprises the body of knowledge and innovation (especially creative works such as writing, art, music, and inventions) in relation to which no person or other legal entity can establish or maintain proprietary interests within a particular legal jurisdiction.


This means my writing and the method I used if valid (if it has never been done before). Of course I must submit a patent application for the method which I have not done and will never do because it would simply halter the advance of technology and prove to be nothing that anyone else could not have thought of may already be doing. So that leaves..a little brain power...I almost figured it out...ummm.... my writing. The expression of that idea in writing is copyrighted because that is important because it does not halter the advancement of technology. What it does do is keep little weasels who want to copy it and include it in a book and make money while I pay eight hundred a month in bills and make eight hundred and eighty a month. Seems logical right? For some apparently not because I keep hearing this "public domain! public domain! public domain!". I am sorry but if a operating system developer can not be happy with having the method used free of charge and instead needs to actual expression of the idea in writing then something is wrong.

So the main point is what you guys are wanting, trying, thinking about, or going to do is take away the hard work all these people did writing those articles to help you guys learn. You guys are going to throw that down the drain and basically spit on their work and say its ours now and we can make money. But why.. Why does a operating system developer need rights to a writing instead of the method, they do not. But converting everything in that wiki to public domain is ignorance at it's best OR maybe it is my ignorance in not knowing that the "public domain" does not include the expression of a idea in writing? You now give a company the ability to take what we wrote and sell it in a book, or most likely a individual who can not write and wants to write but can so they copy and sell it since it is public domain and remember I am talking about the expression of a idea in writing not a patent!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

So who are you to decide that all that in there that was written with countless hours is just... free to make money from? Yeah. We will use the slight of hand and rewrite everything. You might have just written it all on your own. Are you going to rewrite it while looking at someone else's work? I mean there is most likely no harm, but I think a moral issue is at hand here and it actually makes you no different from the companies that use a underhanded approach themselves.

Like I said. If you want to find problems find it in the methods explained on the Wiki not in the actual writing since I doubt anyone who actually contributed it and made it publicly available in the first place would mind. What they would mind is you making money from their expression of that idea, not the actual method which as I said two times already needs a patent not a copyright and of course the public domain includes the expression of a idea in writing.

This expression of a idea in writing is most likely why it applies to source code. Since I should be able to write source code that does exactly what yours does as long as it is not exactly the same or so similar that it is obvious that I copied it. The source code copyright is not protecting the idea you have in that code but instead the exact way you wrote it.

My tutorial I may write is a "work" in whole, and of course if a partial is made that is clearly plagiarism then of course.... go figure! I would assume that you by copying tutorial code are not reproducing the document as a whole when it is clear that the original intent was the document or the writing not the source code but the actual document as a whole.

You guys are making a mud puddle over nothing really. I know Microsoft got sued over something that seems like it was common sense to do but I doubt changing the Wiki would help you prevent that sort of problem since you are going to have to perform a patent search instead.. You might keep someone from posting something to the wiki if it is forced into "public domain" but I doubt it would actually help? I mean since you would have ended up writing the same thing and if you did not and you are that worried why not just write any tutorial code in your own way..

So people saying "public domain" are comprehended by me as saying, "I do not care nothing about the author that wrote this in a attempt to help me learn.. and let me read it for free."

You also have to understand that it takes money to sue something over a copyright infringement. Then that work has to actually be worth that amount used to sue them let alone if the person or company getting sued can actually pay it up. You think the government hands our settlement checks or pays the balance when someone owes money in a suit. I think not, and I think the person who got sued pays it. There would have to be a lot of money at stake for someone to sue the owner of osdev.org. Instead the work would most likely be removed since in this wiki we are not making and selling thousands of copies.

The wikipedia.org could get sued since they do have a lot of currency with in their organization.. think about them and us. Is chase a millionaire? And even so the solution to this problem is not a conversion but something more along the writes of someone assuming responsiblity them selves for submitting copyrighted work instead of osdev.org assuming the responsibility if this is even possible and I have no clue.

If someone is going to change a tutorial I submit...THAT MUCH. They should have just written their own.. I mean is that logical? The wiki means ease of editing not public domain by definition. There is no reason the wiki can not include both types if wanted. Of course I generally do a good job on spelling when its a final draft, and someone making a couple of spelling changes is no big deal..I keep the original. I store a original and only use the original. I might include modification with my original if someone edited it on the wiki thus creating those modifications and they have copyright for the modifications if they are actually significant enough to copyright however it would be wrong for me to keep modifications in my original copy thus ... common sense prevails and the world turns instead of someone who must be incapable of understanding something much more primitive than laws and legal speech with two words called, "Right And Wrong"

So I think the first two words in that "Project:License" page of whatever it is -- should be, "Right And Wrong". Maybe just duplicate it about one-thousand times in the page.

"Right And Wrong Right And Wrong Right And Wrong Right And Wrong"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:00 pm 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 1225
I would also like to add my own thoughts, and more than thoughts, the methods I would use to make my job and still make everyone winner:


Quote:
Well, I am convinced that patents only do an exponential harm. Every day more and more patents are being added and it becomes more and more likely to hit many "patented" ideas accidentally. It could reach a point where prosecuting because of patents would be far too common and excessive.

I don't know how freely disclosing an idea could affect a company. For example, even if Microsoft would disclose Windows Vista source code and make it public domain that wouldn't mean they would stop being the favorite company for people's PC's, because they could even stop worrying about patents; at this point they are known enough to keep with their reputation and preferences among people unchanged. Even if somebody would post a modified Windows Vista, the astonishing majority of the world would rather prefer Microsoft official OS because they are the most known of the two and would inspire more confidence to the people.

Anyway, it looks logical to me to say "The method used to achieve a result is patented" and "The general idea cannot be patented".

Well, that being reality, OK, let the big companies keep their vitiated inventive; it would be better for us to even intentionally read patents and then privately put them in a iteration in which we'll be able to extract its core ideas, the occurrences of the patented method being used, and finally, by having learned, we would iterate to render a completely different method, even better that the one currently used and that could probably address more fundamental results than the original and even make it get rid of many things that make it bulky.

And the very final would be unavoidable: either we keep them secret (maybe distributing applications for our living if we don't fear being disassembled and ripped), or we make our ideas public domain at once by publishing them in a massive way so that any company can claim any exclusivity.

Don't be afraid of that! Even if one of us discloses its discoveries and makes them public domain from the start, who cares?

The user wants a nice product, they don't even mind about how those things work; so, while we disclose far away from them our ideas and make them unavoidably free, public domain (thus helping scientific/computing fields), we can keep making money and earning thanks to our nice innovative and apt to be famous product.

In this way we all win, and it's the best way I've come up to think on to revert the evil effects of patents. Go ahed! When you are ready to show up either with a small single discovery or with a deadly huge bunch of ideas that build up something as big as Windows Vista to blow up the propietary landscape, go and earn the living you deserve while making free the ideas to the world! Both things are possible as I have described them!

What I mean is that Public Domain information is ultimately what we need. It can't do harm if we intelligently take the work of keeping things secret without making much of a breaking news and, when we are known enough and have gotten enough earnings, make them Public Domain. In that way, even if somebody tries to rip off something, we would keep being the preferred supplier with no doubt if we also keep the clients with all of the eye-candy and actual functionality they want.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:17 am 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 843
Location: United States
That is fine and dandy except the fact that "public domain" will encompass the writing (copyright) and the invention (patent) which is not ok with me.

I do not want what I may write as a large article in the wiki to become public domain by copyright and patent if valid which of course causes the copyright to become public domain.

Here is my point.
copyright = no
patent = yes, find and dandy.

Like I said you are operating system developers and you should care more about a patent than the copyright unless it is a large block of source code. I do not see where I use a large block of source code and if I do someone let me know and I can stick something in there to release the source code but not the writing. I see no reason why the writing should be released when it is already freely accessible at www.osdev.org.

These would become public domain.
http://www.osdev.org/wiki/Quick_And_Dir ... ace_Scheme
http://www.osdev.org/wiki/Quick_And_Dir ... Management
http://www.osdev.org/wiki/Quick_And_Dir ... _Algorithm

You have two fields:
Operating System Development and Writing

Writing should, with common sense, have a utmost application to large articles authored by a single person which makes it wrong to word a public domain license wrongly in for the wiki.

What happens if I one day get all this stuff written and head over to a publisher. I say, "I want you to publish my book Mr. Publisher." He then says, "Well I was doing some research and we found that all your work is already in the public domain at the www.osdev.org wiki. So I see no reason we should pay you for publishing it, but thanks for visting me and giving me this wonderful writing in the public domain." Do you think I would be very happy at this point? I am just saying that years down the road I might have enough written to have something and if I start releasing copyrights on my writing then that would just be stupid at best.

Quote:
I would also like to add my own thoughts, and more than thoughts, the methods I would use to make my job and still make everyone winner:

You are developing a operating system I assume. Sure. That is a winning deal, but for some others it may very well not be.[wiki][/wiki]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:25 am 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 843
Location: United States
I do not mean to argue this too much. I mean if everyone wants a public domain Wiki then that is fine. If I could post those tutorials and others I plan on writing with out pushing them into public domain then that would be okay, and if not then that would be okay.

So I have no problem in what direction the wiki goes. Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:19 pm 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 1225
What about the forum content?

I am currently building sort of a repository, starting "nanometric", in my website (in my profile...), and I am taking any content found here as well as in anywhere over the Internet.

I don't think anybody cares about that, since it is just a mirror of information not likely to be updated (like updating FAT specs...), and I am not taking credit for it unless it is original code from me. Otherwise I assume it being public domain or just a mirror, depending on copyright notices of every information piece.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:42 am 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:01 pm
Posts: 7612
Location: Germany
@ Kevin:

Utmost respect to your work, but if we reserve our copyright on stuff we put into the Wiki, that would e.g. mean that, when you go to the publisher, you can only publish your original version of the page, without any of the edits made by others, unless you get the written consent of each contributor...

I understand your sentiment, seeing how much work you did put into certain articles, but... as a strategic decision for the OS Wiki, it'd be a poor one in my eyes.

_________________
Every good solution is obvious once you've found it.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group