MUST for new beginners : Read It
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 3:03 pmvicidial.org
VICIDIAL astGUIclient discussion forum
http://forum.eflo.net/VICIDIALforum/
MUST for new beginners : Read It
http://forum.eflo.net/VICIDIALforum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6935
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 3:03 pmPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:18 pmI must note that Trixbox is not required or recommended for use with VICIDIAL.
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:23 pmThat being said, it does have some interesting information. And no copyright notice that I can find. Hm.
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 1:30 pmDoesn't matter anymore; since the US adopted the Berne convention, creative works are copyrighted from inception.
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:45 pmCreative works are copyrighted from inception, but a PUBLISHED work that is not specified as copyrighted that is a compilation of other works and deals with Open Source Software, especially when it is a Technical Resource ...
I don't think that's even debatable any more. I love Open Source. It makes the rules so much easier. If you want to be technical, you could always note where the information came from to comply with the GPL.
But the information in this area, although well thought out, is hardly "owned" by the site in question. It's not even a Digium site. Asterisk is published via GPL. So works based on it CAN be copied freely or THAT site would not be in compliance with the GPL.
No copyright notice in a situation like this ... means no copyright.
I don't think that's even debatable any more. I love Open Source. It makes the rules so much easier. If you want to be technical, you could always note where the information came from to comply with the GPL.
But the information in this area, although well thought out, is hardly "owned" by the site in question. It's not even a Digium site. Asterisk is published via GPL. So works based on it CAN be copied freely or THAT site would not be in compliance with the GPL.
No copyright notice in a situation like this ... means no copyright.
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:00 amNope. Every piece of writing is copyright by it's creator, even that on forums.
Hell, personal letters have been held to be copyrighted, both email and on paper.
What constitutes *fair use*, now, that's a different issue, entirely.
But I guarantee you, if you pulled all the good long posts out of here and published a book without permissions, *someone* would sue you, and they'd very likely win.
Hell, personal letters have been held to be copyrighted, both email and on paper.
What constitutes *fair use*, now, that's a different issue, entirely.
But I guarantee you, if you pulled all the good long posts out of here and published a book without permissions, *someone* would sue you, and they'd very likely win.
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:12 amOnly if you published it "as your own". If you credited the location and author for those works that were actually written by them, you'd be in the clear failing a copyright all rights reserved notice at the location from whence you borrowed it.
But most importantly any items that were not actually written by the site from which you extract (excerpts captured and brought to that site from other places that are GNU), you'd be completely in the clear. And, in case you didn't notice, there IS a (c) at the bottom of THIS page.
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I've been in the publishing industry since 1981, I've written and read policy, and attended hearings regarding who stole what and from whom (resulting in many policy changes, of course, as directed by the presiding Judge). Something as simple as "not bothering" to put a "TM" on your trademark can be a serious bummer later when you try to enforce it.
Publishing your work (any work written by you) in a public forum is not how you maintain a copyright, regardless of whether you had it when you wrote the material (UNLESS of course, you notify said general public that although you are publishing it publicly, you assert your rights).
Publishing compiled work of others, rephrased a bit, without a copyright notice, in a publicly accessible area ... well, I guess you know my opinion on that.
But most importantly any items that were not actually written by the site from which you extract (excerpts captured and brought to that site from other places that are GNU), you'd be completely in the clear. And, in case you didn't notice, there IS a (c) at the bottom of THIS page.
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I've been in the publishing industry since 1981, I've written and read policy, and attended hearings regarding who stole what and from whom (resulting in many policy changes, of course, as directed by the presiding Judge). Something as simple as "not bothering" to put a "TM" on your trademark can be a serious bummer later when you try to enforce it.
Publishing your work (any work written by you) in a public forum is not how you maintain a copyright, regardless of whether you had it when you wrote the material (UNLESS of course, you notify said general public that although you are publishing it publicly, you assert your rights).
Publishing compiled work of others, rephrased a bit, without a copyright notice, in a publicly accessible area ... well, I guess you know my opinion on that.
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:04 amethically you are just stealing from somebody.
If you dont have any ethics you wont quote your source.
But if you do you will. Except if you really think they are just stealing from somebody
If you dont have any ethics you wont quote your source.
But if you do you will. Except if you really think they are just stealing from somebody
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:55 am> If you credited the location and author for those works that were actually written by them, you'd be in the clear failing a copyright all rights reserved notice at the location from whence you borrowed it.
Yup, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Merely granting credit does not absolve you of being an infringer. And merely giving 'full' notice does not get you any *extra* bennies -- except the amount you can sue for.
And failure to give notice *does* affect trademark enforcement rights, but has nothing to do with copyright -- anymore. That was the case before we adopted Berne, but isn't anymore.
Yup, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Merely granting credit does not absolve you of being an infringer. And merely giving 'full' notice does not get you any *extra* bennies -- except the amount you can sue for.
And failure to give notice *does* affect trademark enforcement rights, but has nothing to do with copyright -- anymore. That was the case before we adopted Berne, but isn't anymore.