Jump to content

Sky Slate Blueberry Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate
Photo

Ahk Standard Library Collection, 2010 Sep (+Gui) ~ Libs: 100


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic
Learning one
  • Members
  • 1483 posts
  • Last active: Jan 02 2016 02:30 PM
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2009
I'm reading this thread and started to read OK to sell? and I'm really sick of it all. :x

I am the lawyer, but I'm not specialized in Intellectual property law.
So things I wrote a few posts above may be considered as 99% correct.
I am not giving (like any other lawyer) 100% correct legal advices for free for simple reason - I'm not motivated to do a research through
a billions and billions of legal paragraphs for free. Law is complicated!

So you can see that giving a 100% correct answer what you are allowed and not allowed to do is sometimes a hard task even for a lawyer.
For a non-lawyer, it may be a hell hard or even impossible.

So please, try to write any licence. As the author, you have (almost) absolute power upon your creation.
It's not so hard, and you can help others that care about that legal stuff (like me) a lot.

Take a look at this example - Lexikos' default copyright license. It really isn't so hard. Please write anything...

polyethene
  • Members
  • 5519 posts
  • Last active: May 17 2015 06:39 AM
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012

I'm telling you that's not necessarily the case. By the way, the "doctrine" is established federal law in the U.S. so if you don't care it's at your own risk, since your works are under copyright here as well as under EU guidelines.

You mentioned two exceptional cases of educational use and archiving. This forum is not exclusive to academics and collecting code for historical purposes does not represent a significant interest here. Therefore your statements were irrelevant to the discussion which concerns copyright in the general and broader sense. I suppose you deserve some merit for trying, though.

Copyright laws, both in U.S. and EU statutes, give the author the exclusive right to dictate certain activites with regards to their works if they so choose. That doesn't mean that authors are required to exercise those dictates, only that if cetain activities involving their work fall under the copyright that they and only they have the right to dictate how those shall work. So telling the authors they must declare their legal status as the copyright holder for every single piece of code written here in order for their general use to be legitimate is silly.

Why thank you captain obvious. Nobody is saying authors must declare copyright, Tuncay is only requesting people to license their work. While I share the sentiment, I personally disagree with it and advocate the freedom to post unlicensed code, because asking for permission is not that hard.

autohotkey.com/net Site Manager

 

Contact me by email (polyethene at autohotkey.net) or message tidbit


Sean
  • Members
  • 2462 posts
  • Last active: Feb 07 2012 04:00 AM
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2007
I don't know if it's legally feasible, but how about making the public license be the default one for the scripts posted in the forum without an explicit license term? If an author disagrees with the default license term of the forum, he can enforce his own. My point is that don't bother people with the license issue who don't care about it, do that to those who do care about it.

sinkfaze
  • Moderators
  • 6367 posts
  • Last active: Nov 30 2018 08:50 PM
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2008

This forum is not exclusive to academics and collecting code for historical purposes does not represent a significant interest here.


The educational purposes limitation of copyright law is not specific to academic institutions (and rightfully so, since some schools are "for profit"). If we are teaching people to use AHK and use code created by AHK in these forums under the guise of a non-profit endeavor, that is an educational purpose which satisfies the established limitation of an author's copyright (although in the EU statutes the terms vary in some respects).

And for what purpose something is being archived is irrelevant. If data is being saved for later reference or use (which is part of the forum's function, whether by design or not) then it is an archive. So on the contrary, my points are very relevant.

And to what end are we trying to license scripts? I haven't seen any legal precedent with regards to scripts vs. applications but I would imagine there's little to argue about in terms of validity (or lack thereof).

Tuncay
  • Members
  • 1945 posts
  • Last active: Feb 08 2015 03:49 PM
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Sean, I think I did requested that somewhere in this forum already. I dont know where, but it does not matter. I would fully support a default license term for the scripts. The best would be if we offer a list of some very common licenses with informal pages and links.

But what is with posts older than the default license? Can we give any license to a script without the agreement of the original poster or developer? May be the default license could affect only for scripts and posts AFTER its creation.

I do encourage just to give any license (even public domain if it is one). Please let us talk in another thread about licensing and plans. If someone is willing to start and talk about that further, then post the link here.

No signature.


MasterFocus
  • Moderators
  • 4323 posts
  • Last active: Jan 28 2016 01:38 AM
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2009
Tuncay, I think you should consider checking if the libraries are compatible.
I immediately remembered this project when I saw this topic.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Antonio França -- git.io -- github.com -- ahk4.net -- sites.google.com -- ahkscript.org

Member of the AHK community since 08/Apr/2009. Moderator since mid-2012.


Tuncay
  • Members
  • 1945 posts
  • Last active: Feb 08 2015 03:49 PM
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2006
How can I check if the libraries are compatible with each other? It is too complex and time consuming. What would the way to resolve that?

No signature.


MasterFocus
  • Moderators
  • 4323 posts
  • Last active: Jan 28 2016 01:38 AM
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2009
Sorry, I'm not actually saying that you're the one who has to do this. Maybe you should advice people who intend to add their libraries to check the compatibility. Also, ask people to report if any incompatibilities are found so you may add some kind of "incompatibilities list" to your GUI. I think it's useful to add this kind of info to the first post.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Antonio França -- git.io -- github.com -- ahk4.net -- sites.google.com -- ahkscript.org

Member of the AHK community since 08/Apr/2009. Moderator since mid-2012.


Tuncay
  • Members
  • 1945 posts
  • Last active: Feb 08 2015 03:49 PM
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Thats a good idea. thx. I think, next update I'll include that.

No signature.


  • Guests
  • Last active:
  • Joined: --

Names: To avoid possible conflict...

...it's probably wayyy overkill, but perhaps it'd be best if all Includes/Files were prefixed with really long/specific prefixes...(or even auto-prefixed with the file name?)...

Tuncay_EX_Example() {
	msgbox, Tuncay's Example() function from the EX package
}
Whoever_COM_Release() {
	msgbox, Whoever's Release() function from the COM package
}
...but then each package would have another user-editable include...

EX_Example() {
	return Tuncay_EX_Example()
}
COM_Release() {
	return Whoever_COM_Release()
}
...which would map the Library Author's preferred short names onto the Library's real long names, then the user could include all Library functions & edit the function name mapping include files if a conflict arises...

I would also like all built-in functions like this too, currently you can override a built-in function by re-declaring it...but then there's no way to call the original function...

InStr() {
	msgbox, my custom InStr()
	InStr()	;//infinite loop, can't pass to real InStr()
}
...so I'd like all built-in functions renamed to BIF_* or A_* or A_BIF_*...but still have default aliases of the BIF_* names to the names they currently use...InStr() would still exist by default as InStr() (& also as A_BIF_InStr())...but the default alias would be overridable...

InStr() {
	msgbox, my custom InStr()
	A_BIF_InStr()	;//pass to real InStr()
}
...then you can override the alias & still call the real BIF...

All of this would be infinitely easier with #define...

#define EX_Example Tuncay_EX_Example
#define COM_Release Whoever_COM_Release
...again, I said maybe it's overkill, but it would help solve Function Library naming conflicts...

My recommendations for function libraries
...
(+ you can always write your own...

...I don't like PD, BSD, LGPL or GPL cuz they allow commercial exploitation of code (I don't want someone taking my code, writing a crappy program with it & selling it for $100 & I get nothing)...so yes, I'd write my own...

Tuncay
  • Members
  • 1945 posts
  • Last active: Feb 08 2015 03:49 PM
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2006

I'd write my own

That is ok. Everyone is welcome to write their own license (in English). Even if it is one or two sentences.

The prefixes and names are leaved up to the original developer. I am just collecting these. My idea is not changing the source, just republish. Some licenses would not allow that, and also the backward compatibiliy would be gone.

Edit: I am also searching for a library to list all function names from a ahk source. I think that I saw somewhere one script... But I dont really remember and search did not help me.

No signature.


  • Guests
  • Last active:
  • Joined: --

The prefixes and names are leaved up to the original developer.

English note: leaved should be left[/list]...I didn't mean for you to change it that way, I was suggesting all Library Authors do it that way themselves...

...and also the backward compatibiliy would be gone.

...backcompat would not be gone, all functions would be renamed in the Library file itself, but also supplied with a function name mapping file, so the old/current names would still work...

Tuncay
  • Members
  • 1945 posts
  • Last active: Feb 08 2015 03:49 PM
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2006

...backcompat would not be gone, all functions would be renamed in the Library file itself, but also supplied with a function name mapping file, so the old/current names would still work...

Then the same conflict as what we have now would be exist.

No signature.


  • Guests
  • Last active:
  • Joined: --

Then the same conflict as what we have now would be exist.

...did you read my post? The user would then edit the function name mapping file to resolve the conflict...it's putting the top-level-function names in the hands of the user (but the Library Author still gets to pick their preferred default short names).

It could even be made easier with a "Function Library name mapping editor/manager" script or a "Function Library name conflict resolver" script...the user would run that script to resolve conflicts when they add a new Library file & it conflicts...

tank
  • Administrators
  • 4345 posts
  • AutoHotkey Foundation
  • Last active: May 02 2019 09:16 PM
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2007

I am also searching for a library to list all function names from a ahk source. I think that I saw somewhere one script... But I dont really remember and search did not help me.

thanks Philho
<!-- m -->http://www.autohotke...topic14338.html<!-- m -->
Never lose.
WIN or LEARN.