Register | Login | |||||
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
| |
0 users currently in Programming. |
User | Post |
HyperHacker Posts: 1168/5072 |
Originally posted by Coby It's easy to tell in a lot of cases by comparing disassembled code. That's how it was found that Sony's XCP crap was doing this. |
FreeDOS + Posts: 312/1312 |
Also BGNG seems to make the mistake that you have to give out a GPL'd program to anyone who wants it, modified or unmodified. All that the GPL asks for is that if you choose to distribute the program, the source has to be just as readily available (assuming the distribution isn't source-only already). |
Gavin Posts: 129/181 |
Originally posted by BGNG This is absurd, no where in any of my previous posts was there anything that could be closely considered flaming. The overreaction on your part to a very simple question is utterely puzzling. I ask about statements pertinent to this discussion that are obviously immensely perplexing (to be kind) to anyone who has any knowledge of these matters, and I get called out for flaming?? Well fuck, if I'm getting blamed for it anyway... BGNG: Go fuck yourself Originally posted by BGNG You're either more retarded than I thought or absolutely insane. From Richard Mother-Fucking Stallman (creator of the GNU project) This is so central to what the GNU stands for that I can't even believe you keep repeating your claims. I don't seem to recall GNU ever stating, as you say, that it was to establish it's stated goals of gving rights to software users to modify the programs that run on their computer without any sort of legal framework in place. The only restrictions placed on the code say, "Don't steal my shit" and, "if you use my shit as a base for your new code, make sure other people can do the same so they are offered the cool new advancements you made on top of my code." |
Disch Posts: 74/202 |
Originally posted by Coby That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. I was starting to type up a big long post to explain why it was stupid and try and explain the point of these kinds of copyrights -- but I don't think it'd be worth my time. So forget it. |
firemaker Posts: 138/194 |
Well this search engine should make me happier. However I usualy find what I want at Codegurus.com. |
Coby Posts: 51/123 |
So what if the code is copyrighted? Not like anyone's going to know once you compile the program anyway. If you don't want people to use your code, don't release it. |
MathOnNapkins Posts: 262/1106 |
Apparently everyone wants to be a mod these days.
Personally, I think that stuff like Krugle would work best if all the code was user submitted as public domain. That way, if there is a theft issue, that user can be banned/sued and the offending code removed. It would probably work best as a Q/A format for small tasks. Something like, "how do I open a file in ____ operating system?" or "how do I work detect mouse clicks in _____ programming language?", with clear and conside commented code. However, there are already sites like that, such as experts-exchange, (not expert sexchange . But that site makes you register to even view solutions, which is lame. You should only need to register to ask questions and give answers. |
FreeDOS + Posts: 310/1312 |
Originally posted by DanOriginally posted by BGNG Forums are meant to keep discussions orgainized. If you want something that moves from topic to topic, go to IRC. |
Dan Posts: 88/219 |
Originally posted by BGNG I don't agree, but as you said it's your call to do whatever you want with your source code. (I'm personally not sure I agree with forcing people to release their source code which is why I use the BSD license tor release my source code under) Originally posted by BGNG Off topic posts are what make threads interesting. In real life, discussions can move on from one topic to another. This board seems to have a very off definition of what spam actually is. Off-topic posts != spam. |
Guy Perfect Posts: 178/451 |
Dan:
I regard "free" as the international convention has defined it: uncontrolled; without cost. I don't charge a dime for the software that I release. And I do release source code: Every project of mine that is specifically not the result of hacking something has released source code. Just look at some of my posts in this very forum (Link, Link, Link, Link) for snippets of relevant code that I authored. Incidentally, Krugle may end up (depending on how they do things) finding those posts as it crawls the web (which it may or may not do) and in such a scenario document them in its index. I, for one, would be happy to see my source code being useful for someone else. But products of hacking something, as I mentioned before, I will release documentation instead of source code. That's my call; you don't have to agree with it. Gavin: Your intent was provocative (malicious intent is just as "flaming" as you can get) and with your most recent post, you are clearly unwilling to reasonably consider the things that I have to say. Your most recent post bears no significance to the subject at hand (Krugle) and therefore qualifies as spam. If you have a bone to pick with me, do it in a PM. Don't clutter up the board with insults. Parasyte: I fully support GNU and the Free Software Foundation. What I do not like is the means by which GNU is ensuring its vision: the GPL. Change the means but keep the cause the same, and I'd like everything about it. Because of the GPL, which, in my experience, is one of the more popular ways to distribute source code, and because of my distain for the license, something like Krugle wouldn't be as effective as it could be for someone like me. I understand "free source code" to be open for use, public or private, without any legal encumbrances or restrictions. Since the GPL requires source code to be made available for any distributed work "based on the program" borrowed from, Krugle would end up as more of a display case than something I would feel comfortable using. |
Parasyte + Posts: 12/53 |
Aside from BGNG's statement which sums up to "I like GNU except that I do not," I think it should be noted that what I was trying to say originally is that "source code search engines" could be used to exploit software licenses that are designed to keep the software's freedom available to everyone. Point in case is of course the GNU General Public License; the whole idea behind 'copyleft' is to prevent people from restricting the rights of other users. For example, if programmer X likes binutils and decides to add support for a new CPU, he's perfectly free to do so, and he is perfect free to keep it to himself. But if he ever releases the modified program in any form, the source code must also be available at no extra charge, as has been stated previously. The reason for this is that so all of the users out there who benefit from the modifications are free to expand on the project, fix bugs, or otherwise maintain the code. You are in defiance of the license when you choose to remove these rights from others.
And how this all works into the topic at hand: If these source code search engines do not properly handle the licenses for the source code they list, I imagine there could be some very negative results. You must keep in mind that just because source code is freely available without any known license does not make it public domain. Quite the contrary: the status of "public domain" must be clearly stated if it to be handled as such. That is all I am saying; the sources listed should be clearly labeled with how they may and may not be used. |
Dan Posts: 87/219 |
Originally posted by Gavin Releasing source code is bad. That's the general jist I get. Completely bizarre attitude when it comes to hobbyist programming, in my opinion. |
Gavin Posts: 127/181 |
Originally posted by BGNG It was just a question, so you can stop your pedantic obsession with forum decorum. Can I get a hearty, "WTF", for my comments that fall, "just short of flaming" ?? If this was a flame, I probably would have been talking about the multiple times a night that I engage in sexual intercorse with your mother and how you take it up the butt from your father, and probably something concerning "balls" and "your mouth," thrown in for good measure, just FYI. I was simply curious considering most of the posts I've seen you make appear to be veiled attempts at selling some message or addressing a percieved impropriety or misconception with the world of software developement at large. And I was like, you know, wondering what that was all about. (edit: Gavin retard alert. decore != decorum ) |
Dan Posts: 86/219 |
Originally posted by BGNG Hate to disagree with you there but your version of free and GNU's are not the same. You stated that you won't release the source code, which is a part of GNU's "free" definition. From the GNU website : "Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software." How can a user improve your software, without the source code? Going by the GNU website, your software would only be "free" as in "beer", not as in "speech". |
Guy Perfect Posts: 176/451 |
That falls just short of flaming, Gavin. When hacking games, the point is to learn how it works. Source code is irrelevant in that regard, as I release documentation for my hacking projects in place of source code. GNU stands for free software specifically, and open-source is simply an added bonus (except with the GPL, as stated above, it's not really "open," per sé ). Anything that I create will still be released for free, which is exactly what GNU stands for.
Regardless, this is a thread about Krugle, not the approperiateness of open-source. |
Gavin Posts: 126/181 |
And why, again, is releasing your source-code such a problem (especially if you say you like what GNU stands for??)? |
Guy Perfect Posts: 175/451 |
If you don't release code, then Krugle won't document it. Here's an excerpt from the GPL. Pay particular attention to section 2, condition b:
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's |
FreeDOS + Posts: 304/1312 |
Originally posted by BGNG No. The license says that if you redistribute the product to anyone, they must have access to the source code just as easily. So if you sell an operating system for $50 to someone, they must be able to have the source code for no extra charge. There's nothing that says you _must_ release any modifications (you can keep it all to yourself), but if you do, you must not retain the source code or make it more difficult to get the source code. |
Guy Perfect Posts: 174/451 |
Something like this will only be particularly helpful if the code being indexed is truly public domain. I like what GNU stands for, but I absolutely despise their Public Licence, which basically says "You're vulnerable to lawsuit if you use code protected under this license and don't release your code and do it under this license."
Retaining ownership is the exact opposite of what open-source is about, so GNU should really release a new revision to their license stating any code protected under the license is free game. Why have the license at all if that's the case? Good question. In the United States, copyrights are applied automatically to any original works, so there is legal protection under any circumstances when code is released. That way, if it really matters (which it probably doesn't), someone won't be able to say "Look at this awesome code I made" and get away with it if the code is borrowed. In regards to Krugle, which will likely return unlimited quanities of code protected under worthless licenses, it's a good way to find a large selection of stuff that you can look at but not have. |
Gavin Posts: 125/181 |
I've tested a few of these before.. Krulge certainly isn't the first. Koders comes to mind, and I know there are a few others that I just can't think of. Intrestesting I guess? I have only actually used one of these once, and it did help. I was having trouble locating a real working example of Mozilla's internal binary input and output services, nsIBinaryInputStream / nsIBinaryOutputStream, which I found in some MPL licenensed code or another. Can't remember which moz project it belonged to or if it was just some generic scriptage. In any event, it helped. |
This is a long thread. Click here to view it. |