1. Protection of our software
Hi all,
many people are distributing free software just for fun and out of
idealism. Also most people on this list do so, and so do I. It's part of
the "old internet spirit", and all people who I know appreciate, that
there is so much free stuff on the internet.
But some time ago I learned, that there are people (in order to avoid
misunderstandings: I do not mean menbers of the Eu community!) who are
not satisfied by getting software at no charge, and by getting the
source code. They obviously think that they have the right to do what
they want with the work of other people ...
For example, my file "mbox100.zip" comes with the following license.
Do you think, important parts are missing? (I'd like to keep the license
as short as possible.) Dear native English speakers, is it correct and
understandable English?
Yesterday I discovered, that a guy in Russia had split the file into two
pieces, and distributes the pieces separately!
"... as long as ... the file 'mbox100.zip' is distributed unchanged and
completely." should be clear enough to state, that this isn't allowed,
no?
<QUOTE>
License
-------
All rights and the copyright of the software distributed with this
license remain with the developer, Juergen Luethje.
This software is distributed as Freeware, you are free to use it at no
charge. You may copy the software and it's documentation freely, as long
as you are not selling it and the file "mbox100.zip" is distributed
unchanged and completely.
Without special written permission by the author, you are not allowed to
wrap the file "mbox100.zip". That means you must not distribute the file
in a way, that it is packed in another archive or any other file.
This software is distributed WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the
implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
I do not accept responsibility for any effects, adverse or otherwise,
that this code may have on you or your computer. Use it at your own risk.
<UNQUOTE>
I mailed to the guy who I mentioned above:
"... you are violating the license ... it is not allowed to distribute
the file in two separate pieces, like you do. Please stop that!"
He answered:
"I didn't think it is so important. The rule of my server is to
distribute program and it sources if included separately."
That's incredible. He thinks he can make the rules concerning my work!
Although I want to have a license that covers such issues, I know that I
normally can't do much against it, if someone doesn't care for the
license at all.
So the next question please: What else can I do?
I also experienced, that some people like to distribute the file with a
different name, which I don't want, too. Is there an installer, that
only installs the software, if the installation file has the correct
name, and after having checked it's integrity?
Thanks in advance for any hints!
Juergen
--
/"\ ASCII ribbon campain | This message has been ROT-13 encrypted
\ / against HTML in | twice for higher security.
X e-mail and news, |
/ \ and unneeded MIME | http://home.arcor.de/luethje/prog/
2. Re: Protection of our software
Hi Juergen,
----------
> From: Juergen Luethje <j.lue at gmx.de>
> Subject: Protection of our software
>
> Hi all,
[snipped]
> Yesterday I discovered, that a guy in Russia had split
> the file into two pieces, and distributes the pieces separately!
> "... as long as ... the file 'mbox100.zip' is distributed
> unchanged and completely." should be clear enough to state,
>that this isn't allowed, no?
[snipped]
> I mailed to the guy who I mentioned above:
> "... you are violating the license ... it is not allowed
> to distribute the file in two separate pieces, like you do.
> Please stop that!"
>
> He answered:
> "I didn't think it is so important. The rule of my server
> is to distribute program and it sources if included
> separately."
I can not find 'mbox100.zip' in Russian Internet
just now -- rambler, yandex, google have no info about
this file here.
Maybe that guy has deleted your splited file from
his server now ...
Or it is just not registered for now on search engines.
Or just names are different ... Yes, names are different!
Please, let me know the address privately, if you have no protests.
I think, that guy just doesn't understand your license well enough.
Free ... What else ...
I know, I am wrong here, there is free and free, software too.
And the "free" word has more than 50 translations into Russian.
But my own 'free' is free of any restrictions at all,
for example, in the polyglot.zip package.
Regards,
Igor Kachan
kinz at peterlink.ru
3. Re: Protection of our software
Hi Igor,
thanks for your reply. You wrote:
> Hi Juergen,
>
> ----------
>> From: Juergen Luethje <j.lue at gmx.de>
>> To: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com>
>> Subject: Protection of our software
>> Sent: 15 nov 2003 y. 14:52
>>
>> Hi all,
>
> [snipped]
>
>> Yesterday I discovered, that a guy in Russia had split
>> the file into two pieces, and distributes the pieces separately!
>> "... as long as ... the file 'mbox100.zip' is distributed
>> unchanged and completely." should be clear enough to state,
>> that this isn't allowed, no?
>
> [snipped]
>
>> I mailed to the guy who I mentioned above:
>> "... you are violating the license ... it is not allowed
>> to distribute the file in two separate pieces, like you do.
>> Please stop that!"
>>
>> He answered:
>> "I didn't think it is so important. The rule of my server
>> is to distribute program and it sources if included
>> separately."
>
> I can not find 'mbox100.zip' in Russian Internet
> just now -- rambler, yandex, google have no info about
> this file here.
>
> Maybe that guy has deleted your splited file from
> his server now ...
>
> Or it is just not registered for now on search engines.
>
> Or just names are different ... Yes, names are different!
Yes, instead of the original file 'mbox100.zip', he distributes the
two files 'wcx_mbox_1.0.rar' and 'wcx_mbox_1.0_source.rar'. 
(
> Please, let me know the address privately, if you have no protests.
I'll be happy to do so, thanks. I just didn't like to mention the URL
in public, because that would be kind of advertisement for his website.
> I think, that guy just doesn't understand your license well enough.
Yes, may be. That's why I posted the license here. It would be very nice,
if one or two native English speakers tell me, if it contains e.g. any
ambiguous statement.
When then someone in the world reads the license, it's not under my
influence, whether or not s/he understands English ...
> Free ... What else ...
>
> I know, I am wrong here, there is free and free, software too.
>
> And the "free" word has more than 50 translations into Russian.
>
> But my own 'free' is free of any restrictions at all,
> for example, in the polyglot.zip package.
I see, but my license does not only consist of the word "free". 
Well, I hope this guy will now change the stuff on his website.
My main question is, how to prevent things like this in the future.
Best regards,
Juergen
--
/"\ ASCII ribbon campain | This message has been ROT-13 encrypted
\ / against HTML in | twice for higher security.
X e-mail and news, |
/ \ and unneeded MIME | http://home.arcor.de/luethje/prog/
4. Re: Protection of our software
The intentions of the license seem pretty clear to me.
... It would be very nice,
> if one or two native English speakers tell me, if it contains e.g. any
> ambiguous statement.
> When then someone in the world reads the license, it's not under my
> influence, whether or not s/he understands English ...
> Best regards,
> Juergen
>
5. Re: Protection of our software
Hi Juergen,
----------
> From: Juergen Luethje <j.lue at gmx.de>
> Subject: Re: Protection of our software
>
>
> Hi Igor,
>
> thanks for your reply. You wrote:
>
> > Hi Juergen,
> >
> > ----------
> >> From: Juergen Luethje <j.lue at gmx.de>
> >> To: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com>
> >> Subject: Protection of our software
> >> Sent: 15 nov 2003 y. 14:52
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >
> > [snipped]
> >
> >> Yesterday I discovered, that a guy in Russia had split
> >> the file into two pieces, and distributes the pieces separately!
> >> "... as long as ... the file 'mbox100.zip' is distributed
> >> unchanged and completely." should be clear enough to state,
> >> that this isn't allowed, no?
> >
> > [snipped]
> >
> >> I mailed to the guy who I mentioned above:
> >> "... you are violating the license ... it is not allowed
> >> to distribute the file in two separate pieces, like you do.
> >> Please stop that!"
> >>
> >> He answered:
> >> "I didn't think it is so important. The rule of my server
> >> is to distribute program and it sources if included
> >> separately."
> >
> > I can not find 'mbox100.zip' in Russian Internet
> > just now -- rambler, yandex, google have no info about
> > this file here.
> >
> > Maybe that guy has deleted your splited file from
> > his server now ...
> >
> > Or it is just not registered for now on search engines.
> >
> > Or just names are different ... Yes, names are different!
>
> Yes, instead of the original file 'mbox100.zip', he distributes the
> two files 'wcx_mbox_1.0.rar' and 'wcx_mbox_1.0_source.rar'. (
>
> > Please, let me know the address privately, if you have no protests.
>
> I'll be happy to do so, thanks. I just didn't like to mention the URL
> in public, because that would be kind of advertisement for his website.
I was on that site just now, on the separate page about your program too.
This is a good Russian antiwarez site, your personal page on this site
has the link with your own site, I can download only one package
with the licence and the source.
Yes, the package is renamed, but it is due to repacking with the Rar
archiver only, I think.
There is the pointing to author : Juergen Luethje.
All right, I think.
Site is:
http://www.wincmd.ru/
Your personal page is:
http://www.wincmd.ru/show.php?id=mbox
Don't worry be just happy!
> > I think, that guy just doesn't understand your license well enough.
>
> Yes, may be. That's why I posted the license here. It would be very nice,
> if one or two native English speakers tell me, if it contains e.g. any
> ambiguous statement.
> When then someone in the world reads the license, it's not under my
> influence, whether or not s/he understands English ...
>
> > Free ... What else ...
> >
> > I know, I am wrong here, there is free and free, software too.
> >
> > And the "free" word has more than 50 translations into Russian.
> >
> > But my own 'free' is free of any restrictions at all,
> > for example, in the polyglot.zip package.
>
> I see, but my license does not only consist of the word "free".
>
> Well, I hope this guy will now change the stuff on his website.
> My main question is, how to prevent things like this in the future.
>
> Best regards,
> Juergen
Best regards,
Igor Kachan
kinz at peterlink.ru
6. Re: Protection of our software
Hi Evan, you wrote:
> The intentions of the license seem pretty clear to me.
That's good to hear, thank you!
>> ... It would be very nice,
>> if one or two native English speakers tell me, if it contains e.g. any
>> ambiguous statement.
>> When then someone in the world reads the license, it's not under my
>> influence, whether or not s/he understands English ...
Best regards,
Juergen
--
/"\ ASCII ribbon campain | This message has been ROT-13 encrypted
\ / against HTML in | twice for higher security.
X e-mail and news, |
/ \ and unneeded MIME | http://home.arcor.de/luethje/prog/
7. Re: Protection of our software
Hi Igor, you wrote:
>> From: Juergen Luethje
>> Sent: 15 nov 2003 y. 18:45
>>
>> Hi Igor,
>>
>> thanks for your reply. You wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Juergen,
>>>
>>>> From: Juergen Luethje
>>>> Sent: 15 nov 2003 y. 14:52
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> [snipped]
>>>
>>>> Yesterday I discovered, that a guy in Russia had split
>>>> the file into two pieces, and distributes the pieces separately!
>>>> "... as long as ... the file 'mbox100.zip' is distributed
>>>> unchanged and completely." should be clear enough to state,
>>>> that this isn't allowed, no?
>>>
>>> [snipped]
>>>
>>>> I mailed to the guy who I mentioned above:
>>>> "... you are violating the license ... it is not allowed
>>>> to distribute the file in two separate pieces, like you do.
>>>> Please stop that!"
>>>>
>>>> He answered:
>>>> "I didn't think it is so important. The rule of my server
>>>> is to distribute program and it sources if included
>>>> separately."
<snip>
>>> Please, let me know the address privately, if you have no protests.
>>
>> I'll be happy to do so, thanks. I just didn't like to mention the URL
>> in public, because that would be kind of advertisement for his website.
>
> I was on that site just now, on the separate page about your program too.
> This is a good Russian antiwarez site,
A good antiwarez site, whose webmaster doesn't care for software
licenses??? I have heard better jokes in my life ...
What he actually does at the moment, is distributing illegal software!
> your personal page on this site has the link with your own site,
I don't have a personal page on that site, and I don't want to have one
at all. I think you mean the page, where he offers his illegally mangled
version of my software for download.
> I can download only one package with the licence and the source.
As I wrote, yesterday he offered the two files 'wcx_mbox_1.0.rar' and
'wcx_mbox_1.0_source.rar' for download, instead of the original file
'mbox100.zip'.
I was again on that site just now, and now I only found the file
'wcx_mbox_1.0.rar'. The contents of the file are the same as yesterday,
that means there is no source code included.
Where did you see the source code in that file?
> Yes, the package is renamed, but it is due to repacking with the Rar
> archiver only, I think.
It is _not_ the original package, just renamed. But I also don't want
anyone to distribute my software renamed, and there's no reson to do so.
> There is the pointing to author : Juergen Luethje.
So what? Mentioning my name on his website doesn't allow him to violate my
license.
> All right, I think.
Not at all!
<snip>
> Don't worry be just happy!
It seems, that this guy doesn't have appropriate respect for other
people's work. That makes me anything else than happy!!
Fact is, that he is distributing an illegally mangled version of my
software!
<snip>
> Best regards,
> Igor Kachan
Thanks again for looking into this, Igor.
Best regards,
Juergen
--
/"\ ASCII ribbon campain | This message has been ROT-13 encrypted
\ / against HTML in | twice for higher security.
X e-mail and news, |
/ \ and unneeded MIME | http://home.arcor.de/luethje/prog/
8. Re: Protection of our software
Hi Juergen,
> Hi Igor, you wrote:
>
>>> From: Juergen Luethje
>>> Sent: 15 nov 2003 y. 18:45
>>>
>>> Hi Igor,
>>>
>>> thanks for your reply. You wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Juergen,
>>>>
>>>>> From: Juergen Luethje
>>>>> Sent: 15 nov 2003 y. 14:52
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> [snipped]
>>>>
>>>>> Yesterday I discovered, that a guy in Russia had split
>>>>> the file into two pieces, and distributes the pieces separately!
>>>>> "... as long as ... the file 'mbox100.zip' is distributed
>>>>> unchanged and completely." should be clear enough to state,
>>>>> that this isn't allowed, no?
>>>>
>>>> [snipped]
>>>>
>>>>> I mailed to the guy who I mentioned above:
>>>>> "... you are violating the license ... it is not allowed
>>>>> to distribute the file in two separate pieces, like you do.
>>>>> Please stop that!"
>>>>>
>>>>> He answered:
>>>>> "I didn't think it is so important. The rule of my server
>>>>> is to distribute program and it sources if included
>>>>> separately."
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Please, let me know the address privately, if you have no protests.
>>>
>>> I'll be happy to do so, thanks. I just didn't like to mention the URL
>>> in public, because that would be kind of advertisement for his website.
>>
>> I was on that site just now, on the separate page about your program
too.
>> This is a good Russian antiwarez site,
> A good antiwarez site, whose webmaster doesn't care for software
> licenses??? I have heard better jokes in my life ...
> What he actually does at the moment, is distributing illegal software!
Why not good, why not antiwarez?
Any webmaster has the right for his own mistakes.
Why illegal? Is it possible to make any damage with
the corrupted Rar archive? I can not unpack that package
now, can only read the content.
But I can go to your site from that site and download
your full package.
There are just mistakes & mistakes.
Let us try to correct the situation.
>> your personal page on this site has the link with your own site,
>
> I don't have a personal page on that site, and I don't want to have
> one at all.
Hey, Juergen, if you want to delete your personal page from his site,
let me know please and I'll try to explain to him this your position.
But there is your personal page on that site, where that guy explains
about your very useful program in Russian, gives the link to your site
and only wants to make more users for your program, nothing more.
These his actions are not illegal with your licence too.
> I think you mean the page, where he offers his
> illegally mangled version of my software for download.
Ok, what do you want?
Do you want just mbox100.zip on his site?
>> I can download only one package with the licence and the source.
>
> As I wrote, yesterday he offered the two files 'wcx_mbox_1.0.rar' and
> 'wcx_mbox_1.0_source.rar' for download, instead of the original file
> 'mbox100.zip'.
But now there is only one package -- wcx_mbox_1_0.rar, which contains
mboxdemo.exw, test.mbx, mbox_eng.txt and mbox.wcx files.
> I was again on that site just now, and now I only found the file
> 'wcx_mbox_1.0.rar'.
Compare please:
wcx_mbox_1_0.rar -- me see just now.
wcx_mbox_1.0.rar -- you see just now.
Do you see that guy is working on his site content?
Let us give him some timeout for his work, Ok ?
> The contents of the file are the same as yesterday,
> that means there is no source code included.
> Where did you see the source code in that file?
I thought mboxdemo.exw is the source code. No?
>> Yes, the package is renamed, but it is due to repacking
>> with the Rar archiver only, I think.
>
> It is _not_ the original package, just renamed. But I also don't want
> anyone to distribute my software renamed, and there's no reson to do so.
Why not to rename the archive? Say, that guy whants to mark all stuff,
related to wcx, as wcx_ .
Is it illegal ?
>
> > There is the pointing to author : Juergen Luethje.
>
> So what? Mentioning my name on his website doesn't allow
> him to violate my license.
He wants Russians know about Juergen Luethje
and his good Euphoria proggy 
>
> > All right, I think.
>
> Not at all!
What not? At all just can not be wrong.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Don't worry be just happy!
>
> It seems, that this guy doesn't have appropriate respect for other
> people's work. That makes me anything else than happy!!
No, Juergen, without respect you can not have your page
on good Russian antiwarez site, fact is.
> Fact is, that he is distributing an illegally mangled
> version of my software!
That guy doesn't know Euphoria well enough to
corrupt your software, I think.
You have no mistakes at all? Yes?
>
> <snip>
>
> > Best regards,
> > Igor Kachan
>
> Thanks again for looking into this, Igor.
>
> Best regards,
> Juergen
Best regards,
Igor Kachan
kinz at peterlink.ru
9. Re: Protection of our software
Igor Kachan wrote:
> ...
> Why not good, why not antiwarez?
> Any webmaster has the right for his own mistakes.
>=20
Could you BOTH please explain to me what you mean/understand with/by
the term 'warez' and 'antiwarez'?
> There are just mistakes & mistakes.
That's the only thing that's clear to me in the moment... .
=20
> Let us try to correct the situation.
Indeed!
Have a nice day, Rolf
--=20
--------------------------------------------------
| Rolf Schroeder | E B |
| M=F6=F6rkenweg 37 | C |
| 21029 Hamburg | D |
| Deutschland | A |
| Earth |-------------------------------|
| Solar System | Earth Phone : +49-40-724-4650 |
| Milky Way | National Fax: 0721-151-577722 |
| Local Group | mailto:Rolf at RSchr.de |
| Known Universe | http://www.rschr.de |
--------------------------------------------------
10. Re: Protection of our software
Rolf wrote:
> Igor Kachan wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Why not good, why not antiwarez?
>> Any webmaster has the right for his own mistakes.
>
> Could you BOTH please explain to me what you mean/understand with/by
> the term 'warez' and 'antiwarez'?
With "warez" I mean this:
http://foldoc.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?query=warez&action=Search
The first time I read the term "antiwarez" was in Igor's post.
I belive it denotes something against warez.
>> There are just mistakes & mistakes.
>
> That's the only thing that's clear to me in the moment... .
>
>> Let us try to correct the situation.
>
> Indeed!
The bottom line is:
Someone had violated my software license.
This is illegal, and I don't like it.
I had asked the Eu community for some help, what I can do, in order to
prevent something like that in the future.
Regards,
Juergen
--
/"\ ASCII ribbon campain | This message has been ROT-13 encrypted
\ / against HTML in | twice for higher security.
X e-mail and news, |
/ \ and unneeded MIME | http://home.arcor.de/luethje/prog/
11. Re: Protection of our software
Juergen Luethje wrote:
>The bottom line is:
>Someone had violated my software license.
>This is illegal, and I don't like it.
>I had asked the Eu community for some help, what I can do, in order to
>prevent something like that in the future.
>
>Regards,
> Juergen
>
>
Hey, Juergen,
If this is indeed a blatant disregard of your license, you could
probably contact the web site's host and let them know that the site is
violating an IP license. That might do the trick.
Unfortunately, there are people who will disregard certain IP rights...
and it's something which we as "code artists" must learn to live with.
Look at Microsoft! They've invested tons of money in license protection
activity, many times to no avail. The pirates will pirate. However, it
seems to me (from what I've read in this thread) that the package is
intact and you are gaining some notoriety... that's a good thing, no? :)
-ck
12. Re: Protection of our software
Juergen:
If you are concerned about a user changing your code.
Do the following.
Simply shroud the code.
Include a statement in the license that the user must register
the software with you to obtain the source code at no cost.
Bernie
13. Re: Protection of our software
Hear hear...
May I use that license in my code?
The only point that I would disagree on though...
>Is there an installer, that
>only installs the software, if the installation file has the correct
>name, and after having checked it's integrity?
As a consumer, I download applications all the time.
For the developer, it might be important to them that installer file is
named w_win98_ver2.38.41.exe, 'cause they have many versions of the same app
in their public directory.
For me, I have many different applications in my "installers" directory. I
wouldn't be able to find this application "Widget" if it had it's current
name, so I almost always rename the installer file to something meaningful
to ME.
Certainly check the integrity, but don't check the name please :o)
MrTrick
>From: Juergen Luethje <j.lue at gmx.de>
>Reply-To: EUforum at topica.com
>To: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com>
>Subject: Protection of our software
>Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 12:52:36 +0100
>
>
>Hi all,
>
>many people are distributing free software just for fun and out of
>idealism. Also most people on this list do so, and so do I. It's part of
>the "old internet spirit", and all people who I know appreciate, that
>there is so much free stuff on the internet.
>
>But some time ago I learned, that there are people (in order to avoid
>misunderstandings: I do not mean menbers of the Eu community!) who are
>not satisfied by getting software at no charge, and by getting the
>source code. They obviously think that they have the right to do what
>they want with the work of other people ...
>
>For example, my file "mbox100.zip" comes with the following license.
>Do you think, important parts are missing? (I'd like to keep the license
>as short as possible.) Dear native English speakers, is it correct and
>understandable English?
>Yesterday I discovered, that a guy in Russia had split the file into two
>pieces, and distributes the pieces separately!
>"... as long as ... the file 'mbox100.zip' is distributed unchanged and
>completely." should be clear enough to state, that this isn't allowed,
>no?
>
><QUOTE>
>License
>-------
>All rights and the copyright of the software distributed with this
>license remain with the developer, Juergen Luethje.
>
>This software is distributed as Freeware, you are free to use it at no
>charge. You may copy the software and it's documentation freely, as long
>as you are not selling it and the file "mbox100.zip" is distributed
>unchanged and completely.
>Without special written permission by the author, you are not allowed to
>wrap the file "mbox100.zip". That means you must not distribute the file
>in a way, that it is packed in another archive or any other file.
>
>This software is distributed WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the
>implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
>I do not accept responsibility for any effects, adverse or otherwise,
>that this code may have on you or your computer. Use it at your own risk.
><UNQUOTE>
>
>
>I mailed to the guy who I mentioned above:
>"... you are violating the license ... it is not allowed to distribute
>the file in two separate pieces, like you do. Please stop that!"
>
>He answered:
>"I didn't think it is so important. The rule of my server is to
>distribute program and it sources if included separately."
>
>That's incredible. He thinks he can make the rules concerning my work!
>Although I want to have a license that covers such issues, I know that I
>normally can't do much against it, if someone doesn't care for the
>license at all.
>
>So the next question please: What else can I do?
>I also experienced, that some people like to distribute the file with a
>different name, which I don't want, too. Is there an installer, that
>only installs the software, if the installation file has the correct
>name, and after having checked it's integrity?
>
>Thanks in advance for any hints!
>
>Juergen
>
>--
> /"\ ASCII ribbon campain | This message has been ROT-13 encrypted
> \ / against HTML in | twice for higher security.
> X e-mail and news, |
> / \ and unneeded MIME | http://home.arcor.de/luethje/prog/
>
>
>
>TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
>
14. Re: Protection of our software
I'm sorry, but does this not look like free verse to anyone else?
Bernie Ryan wrote:
>
>
>Juergen:
> If you are concerned about a user changing your code.
> Do the following.
> Simply shroud the code.
> Include a statement in the license that the user must register
> the software with you to obtain the source code at no cost.
>Bernie
>
>
>
>
>TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
>
>.
>
>
15. Re: Protection of our software
Igor wrote:
<big snip>
> Why illegal? Is it possible to make any damage with
> the corrupted Rar archive? I can not unpack that package
> now, can only read the content.
So what? He did something with my software, that he wasn't allowed to
do. That is illegal. Period.
<snip>
> Hey, Juergen, if you want to delete your personal page from his site,
> let me know please and I'll try to explain to him this your position.
Thanks for the offer.
Yesterday, I wrote him another e-mail in English, again trying to
explain my position to him. I also asked him, whether he has problems
understanding the English language, and whether it would be necessary,
that someone explains this issue to him in Russian.
Then he removed the illegal software from his website, and now he
distributes the unaltered original file instead.
<snip>
>> The contents of the file are the same as yesterday,
>> that means there is no source code included.
>> Where did you see the source code in that file?
>
> I thought mboxdemo.exw is the source code. No?
No. The source code is in a folder called 'source', containing 12 files.
<big snip>
Regards,
Juergen
--
/"\ ASCII ribbon campain | This message has been ROT-13 encrypted
\ / against HTML in | twice for higher security.
X e-mail and news, |
/ \ and unneeded MIME | http://home.arcor.de/luethje/prog/
16. Re: Protection of our software
C. K. Lester wrote:
> Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
>> The bottom line is:
>> Someone had violated my software license.
>> This is illegal, and I don't like it.
>> I had asked the Eu community for some help, what I can do, in order
>> to prevent something like that in the future.
>
> Hey, Juergen,
>
> If this is indeed a blatant disregard of your license, you could
> probably contact the web site's host and let them know that the site is
> violating an IP license. That might do the trick.
Thanks C.K., I think that's a good idea.
Fortunately, after another e-mail by me, that guy decided to cooperate
with me, and now he distributes my unaltered original file, as I
requested.
But I will keep your idea in mind for the future.
> Unfortunately, there are people who will disregard certain IP rights...
> and it's something which we as "code artists" must learn to live with.
I'm afraid that this is true.
> Look at Microsoft! They've invested tons of money in license protection
> activity, many times to no avail. The pirates will pirate. However, it
> seems to me (from what I've read in this thread) that the package is
> intact
No, he had mangled the package.
> and you are gaining some notoriety... that's a good thing, no? :)
Sorry, the word "notoriety" is not in my dictionary.
Regards,
Juergen
--
/"\ ASCII ribbon campain | This message has been ROT-13 encrypted
\ / against HTML in | twice for higher security.
X e-mail and news, |
/ \ and unneeded MIME | http://home.arcor.de/luethje/prog/
17. Re: Protection of our software
Bernie wrote:
> Juergen:
> If you are concerned about a user changing your code.
> Do the following.
> Simply shroud the code.
> Include a statement in the license that the user must register
> the software with you to obtain the source code at no cost.
> Bernie
I am concerned not only about someone changing my code, but also about
e.g. distributing my software under a different name.
I see it this way:
I released a "product". A product at least has a name, a shape,
and contents. In this regard, in principle there is no difference
between a software product, and a hardware product.
And I don't want anyone to alter anything of my product.
E.g. I do not buy a Ford, and resell it as Toyota.
Registering might help to prevent people from doing strange things with
my products. I'll think about it more in depth, thanks for this
suggestion!
Regards,
Juergen
--
/"\ ASCII ribbon campain | This message has been ROT-13 encrypted
\ / against HTML in | twice for higher security.
X e-mail and news, |
/ \ and unneeded MIME | http://home.arcor.de/luethje/prog/
18. Re: Protection of our software
Patrick wrote:
> Hear hear...
>
> May I use that license in my code?
Yes, of course. You are welcome.
But I got some private mails, containing good suggestions for
improvement. So maybe tomorrow I'll post an improved version.
> The only point that I would disagree on though...
>> Is there an installer, that
>> only installs the software, if the installation file has the correct
>> name, and after having checked it's integrity?
>
> As a consumer, I download applications all the time.
> For the developer, it might be important to them that installer file is
> named w_win98_ver2.38.41.exe, 'cause they have many versions of the same app
> in their public directory.
> For me, I have many different applications in my "installers" directory. I
> wouldn't be able to find this application "Widget" if it had it's current
> name, so I almost always rename the installer file to something meaningful
> to ME.
>
> Certainly check the integrity, but don't check the name please :o)
I see your point. But how can I then prevent people from distributing
renamed copies of my software?
(That guy in Russia was not the first one, who did so!)
<snipped old text>
Regards,
Juergen
--
/"\ ASCII ribbon campain | Money is the root of all evil.
\ / against HTML in | Send 20 Dollars for more info.
X e-mail and news, |
/ \ and unneeded MIME | http://home.arcor.de/luethje/prog/
19. Re: Protection of our software
<snip>
>
> > and you are gaining some notoriety... that's a good thing, no? :)
>
> Sorry, the word "notoriety" is not in my dictionary.
>
> Regards,
> Juergen
>
what about fame?
20. Re: Protection of our software
Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
> Sorry, the word "notoriety" is not in my dictionary.
>
> Regards,
> Juergen
>
something like "beruchtigt" (notorious)
21. Re: Protection of our software
Evan Marshall wrote:
>
>
> Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
>>
>> Sorry, the word "notoriety" is not in my dictionary.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Juergen
>>
> something like "beruchtigt" (notorious)
I meant it in a "fame" connotation... a good fame, too. :)
22. Re: Protection of our software
Hi Juergen,
----------
> From: Juergen Luethje <j.lue at gmx.de>
> Subject: Re: Protection of our software
>
>
> Igor wrote:
>
> <big snip>
>
> > Why illegal? Is it possible to make any damage with
> > the corrupted Rar archive? I can not unpack that package
> > now, can only read the content.
>
> So what? He did something with my software, that he wasn't
> allowed to do. That is illegal. Period.
Ok, but I think that the "illegal" word is too hard to tell
about these little mistakes.
The "period" word is too hard too, I think.
> <snip>
>
> > Hey, Juergen, if you want to delete your personal
> > page from his site, let me know please and I'll try
> > to explain to him this your position.
>
> Thanks for the offer.
> Yesterday, I wrote him another e-mail in English, again trying to
> explain my position to him. I also asked him, whether he has problems
> understanding the English language, and whether it would be necessary,
> that someone explains this issue to him in Russian.
I mailed to him just now (I had some problems with my provider yesterday
and today)
and explained to him about Euphoria, sources . . . all these things.
His name is Andrey, I like his site, it has very simple and handy design.
And was reorganised just now -- 13 or 14 november.
Do you see Andrey was in hard work this time?
> Then he removed the illegal software from his website,
> and now he distributes the unaltered original file instead.
Ok, all right now, yes? But I do not like this your "illegal", sorry.
Think please, you have some intention to improve your license, yes?
Don't worry, improve your source better, and be just happy to
write good free software.
Other questions are much more simple, I think.
> <snip>
>
> >> The contents of the file are the same as yesterday,
> >> that means there is no source code included.
> >> Where did you see the source code in that file?
> >
> > I thought mboxdemo.exw is the source code. No?
>
> No. The source code is in a folder called 'source',
> containing 12 files.
OOooPPss ! !
Ok, I'll learn better your package, sometime later on,
if you have no protests
>
> <big snip>
>
> Regards,
> Juergen
Regards,
Igor Kachan
kinz at peterlink.ru
23. Re: Protection of our software
Me wrote:
> Patrick wrote:
>
>> Hear hear...
>>
>> May I use that license in my code?
>
> Yes, of course. You are welcome.
>
> But I got some private mails, containing good suggestions for
> improvement. So maybe tomorrow I'll post an improved version.
Here is my latest version. Many thanks to Louis Puster and Travis Beaty
for their help. But any mistake in the text is made by myself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
License
-------
This program, "mbox100.zip", is copyright 2003 by Juergen Luethje.
All rights are reserved, except that you may copy the software and it's
documentation freely, as long as you are not selling it, and the file
"mbox100.zip" is not modified. This means, among other things, that you
are not allowed to rename the file, or split it into pieces.
Without special written permission from the author, you are not allowed
to distribute the program included in another archive or file.
This software is distributed WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the
implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
I do not accept responsibility for any effects, adverse or otherwise,
that this code may have on you or your computer. Use it at your own risk.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some interesting links concerning this stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
(The last paragraph of the license is copied from the GPL.)
>> The only point that I would disagree on though...
>>> Is there an installer, that
>>> only installs the software, if the installation file has the correct
>>> name, and after having checked it's integrity?
>>
>> As a consumer, I download applications all the time.
>> For the developer, it might be important to them that installer file is
>> named w_win98_ver2.38.41.exe, 'cause they have many versions of the same app
>> in their public directory.
>> For me, I have many different applications in my "installers" directory. I
>> wouldn't be able to find this application "Widget" if it had it's current
>> name, so I almost always rename the installer file to something meaningful
>> to ME.
>>
>> Certainly check the integrity, but don't check the name please :o)
>
> I see your point. But how can I then prevent people from distributing
> renamed copies of my software?
> (That guy in Russia was not the first one, who did so!)
Well, I don't want to take a sledgehammer to crack a nut ...
Now for any file that I offer for download, I've added the MD5 checksum
on my website. So anyone can check, whether s/he has got an unaltered
copy of the original file.
Together with a (hopefully) very clear license, that might be sufficient
for now.
Thanks to all who participated in this discussion.
Best regards,
Juergen
--
/"\ ASCII ribbon campain | This message has been ROT-13 encrypted
\ / against HTML in | twice for higher security.
X e-mail and news, |
/ \ and unneeded MIME | http://home.arcor.de/luethje/prog/
24. Re: Protection of our software
Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
>
>Me wrote:
>
>
>Here is my latest version. Many thanks to Louis Puster and Travis Beaty
>for their help. But any mistake in the text is made by myself.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>License
>-------
>This program, "mbox100.zip", is copyright 2003 by Juergen Luethje.
>All rights are reserved, except that you may copy the software and it's
>
>
"It's" is a contraction always meaning "it is," never indicating
possession. Use "its" in this case.
I know, English is funny that way. ;)
I'm looking for a license, too... thanks! (Wait... your license isn't
licensed, is it? heheh.)
