trying to use this script for scrolling tables found at this link: http://www.litotes.demon.co.uk/examp...bleScroll.html
The top left corner in the table grid is hidden from being displayed.
I see:
-- the code is creating DIV's and
-- overrides are hidden
but still can't see anyway to modify so top left corner can be a displayed label to the frozen column.
can anyone advise how to show the top left corner block as part of the left frozen column ??? 32  1634 
Jon Paal wrote: trying to use this script for scrolling tables found at this link:
If you aren't in the kill files of most people here yet, you soon will be.
Then your posts won't be seen at all by the people with enough knowledge to
actually answer your questions.
You keep forgetting:
1) You don't have permission to use the code from the url you posted. It's
copyrighted. All code is. You cannot copy it and use it.
2) If the author of the code isn't willing to help you, then no one else
probably will either.
--
Matt Kruse http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com http://www.AjaxToolbox.com
Matt Kruse wrote: Jon Paal wrote: trying to use this script for scrolling tables found at this link:
If you aren't in the kill files of most people here yet, you soon will be.
Then your posts won't be seen at all by the people with enough knowledge
to actually answer your questions.
You keep forgetting:
1) You don't have permission to use the code from the url you posted. It's
copyrighted. All code is. You cannot copy it and use it.
IBTD.
I do not think it was Richard's intention that these approaches of his do
not spread, but instead that nobody used the text of the example without
his permission (however, it is up to him to clarify this). What is an
example good for if it is not allowed to serve as such?
I, for one, publish the code I use on my Web site and post here for the
public domain, unless specified different (and I expect everybody else to
do so, CMIIW). What I resent and despise only, are people who use (my)
code (even in modified form) without mentioning the original author, making
it seem as if the whole thing was their idea, and people trying to make
money with it without the original author's explicit permission (and I
expect everybody else here to share that attitude, CMIIW).
Furthermore, Copyright is AFAIK only a concept of U.S. American legislation;
however, this is an internationally distributed newsgroup, and a globally
available Web site is probably not only subject to the legislation of one
country, too. And AIUI, Copyright is something that was introduced with
printed material; there is still a gray area here in legislation regarding
electronic media. So it is bordering to incorrect to say that one cannot
copy it and use it because of (U.S. American) Copyright. For example, EU
law, including the legislation of the Federal Republic of Germany (I
happen to live there), knows only author's rights which do not require
registration or any disclaimer of the author to become active. (IANAL)
It all boils down to the question whether concepts and algorithms can and
should be copyrighted, or even patented. I say no; the drawbacks of that
for the many are too many. "Copyleft" certainly is the better alternative.
After all, we are here to _share_ our ideas, are we not?
2) If the author of the code isn't willing to help you, then no one else
probably will either.
True.
PointedEars
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de> writes: Matt Kruse wrote:
1) You don't have permission to use the code from the url you posted. It's
copyrighted. All code is. You cannot copy it and use it.
IBTD.
I guess there was an "unless otherwise stated by the author" missing
for the statement to be generally true. I don't know if there is a
statment by the author in this case.
I do not think it was Richard's intention that these approaches of his do
not spread, but instead that nobody used the text of the example without
his permission (however, it is up to him to clarify this). What is an
example good for if it is not allowed to serve as such?
Inspiration, perhaps.
There is a big difference between using a script written by someoen
else and using an idea from it, since ideas cannot be copyrighted
(although it will be interesting to follow the Dan Brown trial).
I, for one, publish the code I use on my Web site and post here for the
public domain, unless specified different (and I expect everybody else to
do so, CMIIW).
While I can use that statement as argument for my being allowed to use
your code, using other people's code without a similar statement from
them leaves you open to copyright infringement lawsuits.
What I resent and despise only, are people who use (my)
code (even in modified form) without mentioning the original author, making
it seem as if the whole thing was their idea, and people trying to make
money with it without the original author's explicit permission (and I
expect everybody else here to share that attitude, CMIIW).
But releasing into the public domain has a specific meaning, that you
relinquish your rights to the work, as granted to you by copyright
law.
Furthermore, Copyright is AFAIK only a concept of U.S. American legislation;
however, this is an internationally distributed newsgroup, and a globally
available Web site is probably not only subject to the legislation of one
country, too.
Copyright is the English word for a concept that exists in most
legislations. The international Berne Convention, that most countries
have ratified, requires local copyright law to give certain rights
and priveleges. That is why different countries' copyright laws are
mostly compatible.
And AIUI, Copyright is something that was introduced with
printed material; there is still a gray area here in legislation regarding
electronic media.
Legally, I don't think the gray area is that big. It's just that it
doesn't always make a lot of sense to people with technical
understanding :)
So it is bordering to incorrect to say that one cannot
copy it and use it because of (U.S. American) Copyright.
No, but you cannot use it without author permission in a country
that signed the Berne Convention.
For example, EU law, including the legislation of the Federal
Republic of Germany (I happen to live there), knows only author's
rights which do not require registration or any disclaimer of the
author to become active. (IANAL)
US copyright doesn't require that either (since 1989, when they
adopted the Berne Convention). Merely creating and publishing a
work will grant the author the protections of copyright law.
It all boils down to the question whether concepts and algorithms can and
should be copyrighted, or even patented. I say no; the drawbacks of that
for the many are too many.
Agree on both. Copyright covers concrete works, not ideas. Patents
covers only physically implementable ideas. The current duration of
copyright protection is also far too long for copyrighted software
to be useful when it expires, contrary to the goals set forth in
the US constitution for introducing copyright in the first place.
/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lr*@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
I don't need a lawyer, a need some javascript expertise.
many site owners don't reply to help requests because there are too many.
I use code from copyrighted books all the time .... that's why it's published.
I realize it will likely only be a javascript guru who can help here, but there's got to be a solution to this "ultimate challenge"
:)
"Matt Kruse" <ne********@mattkruse.com> wrote in message news:du********@news3.newsguy.com... Jon Paal wrote: trying to use this script for scrolling tables found at this link:
If you aren't in the kill files of most people here yet, you soon will be.
Then your posts won't be seen at all by the people with enough knowledge to actually answer your questions.
You keep forgetting:
1) You don't have permission to use the code from the url you posted. It's copyrighted. All code is. You cannot copy it and use
it.
2) If the author of the code isn't willing to help you, then no one else probably will either.
--
Matt Kruse
http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com
http://www.AjaxToolbox.com
JRS: In article <du********@news3.newsguy.com>, dated Tue, 28 Feb 2006
11:28:05 remote, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Matt Kruse
<ne********@mattkruse.com> posted : Jon Paal wrote: trying to use this script for scrolling tables found at this link:
If you aren't in the kill files of most people here yet, you soon will be.
Then your posts won't be seen at all by the people with enough knowledge to
actually answer your questions.
You keep forgetting:
1) You don't have permission to use the code from the url you posted. It's
copyrighted. All code is. You cannot copy it and use it.
Copyright material cannot legitimately be republished; but it can be
used as it stands (otherwise, one would not be able to read a book), and
its ideas are available for use that does not amount to copying.
As the link is <http://www.litotes.demon.co.uk/examp...ipts/tableScro
ll.html> - on the FAQ author's site, and containing "example" - I'd
expect to find permission-to-use (but not to publish otherwise) given
nearby. Given the nature of the site, that permission might reasonably
be supposed unless stated otherwise.
On such a site, the essence of the code is not necessarily originated by
the page author; there is, or was, at least one large FAQ site that has
an unauthorised partial copy of code taken from merlyn. Copyright can
be breached; but it cannot be stolen.
2) If the author of the code isn't willing to help you, then no one else
probably will either.
Jon Paal is perhaps felt, by many, to be unworthy of assistance. But
that does not necessarily include everybody, though it may include all
whose help would normally be worth having.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
I'm hoping to get a technical response, not start a philosophical discussion, folks.
Let's not get OT.
please focus on the scrolling table defect
Jon Paal wrote: I'm hoping to get a technical response, not start a philosophical
discussion, folks.
You can keep hoping!
Let's not get OT.
The discussion is not OT.
It's very practical for you.
We're explaining to you why you are not legally allowed to use the author's
code for your own use, which you seem to intend to do.
So your technical question is really quite irrelevant.
please focus on the scrolling table defect
No. Have a nice day :)
--
Matt Kruse http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com http://www.AjaxToolbox.com
Matt, please add me to your block list
JRS: In article <du********@news3.newsguy.com>, dated Wed, 1 Mar 2006
14:52:15 remote, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Matt Kruse
<ne********@mattkruse.com> posted : Jon Paal wrote: I'm hoping to get a technical response, not start a philosophical
discussion, folks.
You can keep hoping!
Let's not get OT.
The discussion is not OT.
It's very practical for you.
We're explaining to you why you are not legally allowed to use the author's
code for your own use, which you seem to intend to do.
Have you any positive evidence for that remarkable statement? Remember
that the concept of Copyright is widely misunderstood, not only in
America.
Almost always, published instructional material is covered by copyright.
That means that the author, or other copyright holder, is entitled to
control reproduction of the form of the material; but the ideas
expressed therein can freely be re-used - indeed, that's the purpose of
the work.
Using published code oneself is not, as such, improper copying; putting
it "behind" a Web page might not be; putting it as text on a Web page
would be.
Using code derived from the ideas in published code is undoubtedly
legal.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
Dr John Stockton wrote: We're explaining to you why you are not legally allowed to use the
author's code for your own use, which you seem to intend to do.
Have you any positive evidence for that remarkable statement?
The author's own words:
Quoting http://groups.google.com/group/comp....6946755bc6c3f3 I like the result of your code. I haven't tested it in
my specific case yet (I have some pre-work to do) but
since I might require locking of two columns, and your
solution doesn't seem to support that, then I have to
throw yours out entirely.
That is fine by me, you couldn't afford the rights to use it anyway.
--
Matt Kruse http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com http://www.AjaxToolbox.com
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: Furthermore, Copyright is AFAIK only a concept of U.S. American legislation;
however, this is an internationally distributed newsgroup, and a globally
available Web site is probably not only subject to the legislation of one
country, too. And AIUI, Copyright is something that was introduced with
printed material; there is still a gray area here in legislation regarding
electronic media. So it is bordering to incorrect to say that one cannot
copy it and use it because of (U.S. American) Copyright. For example, EU
law, including the legislation of the Federal Republic of Germany (I
happen to live there), knows only author's rights which do not require
registration or any disclaimer of the author to become active. (IANAL)
Copyright in the US has been tied to the act of authorship, not the
placement of a copyright symbol on the work, for many years now.
In an international forum, however, the Berne Convention is probably
going to be the prevailing copyright law.
Tony wrote: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Furthermore, Copyright is AFAIK only a concept of U.S. American
legislation;
however, this is an internationally distributed newsgroup, and a globally
available Web site is probably not only subject to the legislation of one
country, too. And AIUI, Copyright is something that was introduced with
printed material; there is still a gray area here in legislation
regarding
electronic media. So it is bordering to incorrect to say that one cannot
copy it and use it because of (U.S. American) Copyright. For example, EU
law, including the legislation of the Federal Republic of Germany (I
happen to live there), knows only author's rights which do not require
registration or any disclaimer of the author to become active. (IANAL)
Copyright in the US has been tied to the act of authorship, not the
placement of a copyright symbol on the work, for many years now.
In an international forum, however, the Berne Convention is probably
going to be the prevailing copyright law.
You are, of course, quite correct - and the OP staggeringly wrong in
many respects. As a brief summary:-
1. Copyright is most definately *not* and "american legislation
concept". It is international and America is a tad "behind the times".
2. International copyright is managed by the Berne Convention
*including_within* the USA and it is this which will apply in any issues
about international publication.
3. There is no "grey area" about electronic publication. Publication is
publication, end of story.
4. Copyright under the Berne Convention is inherent in the *creation* of
the work - not its publication and most certainly not in the inclusion
of a copyright notice with the publication. It is *always* active.
Hope those help the OP.
On 04/03/2006 01:37, Tony wrote:
[snip] In an international forum, however, the Berne Convention is probably
going to be the prevailing copyright law.
There's also the possibility of the copyright protection clauses
introduced by World Trade Organisation. All member countries are
required to enact them, and the number of member states should outnumber
Berne signatories. However, it's been a while since I looked at the
relevant documents (and I'm not a lawyer, anyway), so I cannot recall
whether they would apply here.
Still, food for thought.
Mike
--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.
On 03/03/2006 03:34, Matt Kruse wrote: Dr John Stockton wrote:
[snip] Have you any positive evidence for that remarkable statement?
The author's own words:
[snip]
That is fine by me, you couldn't afford the rights to use it
anyway.
Yes, he could mean that it's for purely demonstrative purposes, only. It
would be nice for Richard to state his intentions explicitly, as I've
also been under the general impression that examples posted to both
Usenet and his web site have been usable by others, at least when credit
and original authorship notices are given.
Mike
--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.
Michael Winter said the following on 3/4/2006 7:55 AM: On 03/03/2006 03:34, Matt Kruse wrote:
Dr John Stockton wrote:
[snip]
Have you any positive evidence for that remarkable statement?
The author's own words:
[snip]
That is fine by me, you couldn't afford the rights to use it
anyway.
Yes, he could mean that it's for purely demonstrative purposes, only. It
would be nice for Richard to state his intentions explicitly, as I've
also been under the general impression that examples posted to both
Usenet and his web site have been usable by others, at least when credit
and original authorship notices are given.
I have always gotten that impression from Richard as well. And a lot of
that impression isn't from him saying "you can use it" but from the lack
of him saying "you can't use it".
As for the thread that Matt quoted, I took that as more of Richard's
dis-like of Matt than a "I want money for my code".
--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
Michael Winter wrote: I've also been under the general impression that examples posted to
both Usenet and his web site have been usable by others, at least
when credit and original authorship notices are given.
As I understand it, unless stated otherwise, an original work by someone
cannot be used without permission.
If I write a short story and post it to my web site, that wouldn't give
everyone the right to publish it in a magazine without my permission, would
it?. Same goes for code, even if the original author is attributed.
If these rights didn't exist by default, there would be no need for the GPL,
as it would be implied. Further, no one would be able to put a more
restrictive license on code because they wouldn't the right to restrict its
distribution to begin with.
--
Matt Kruse http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com http://www.AjaxToolbox.com
Randy Webb wrote: As for the thread that Matt quoted, I took that as more of Richard's
dis-like of Matt than a "I want money for my code".
Actually, in an unrelated email conversation I had with someone else
regarding scrollable data grids, he reference's Richard's example and said
this:
| http://www.litotes.demon.co.uk/examp...bleScroll.html
|It works on all browsers and all you have to do is apply a class
|to a table! It's exactly what I need but.... I offered the guy
|$1000 for his permission to use it and you know what he said to
|me? He doesn't have time to accept my $1000!!!! Can you believe
|that?! It's already built but he doesn't have time to take my money!!!
I didn't verify this with Richard, but this email in combination with his
post made me conclude that he has no intention of having his code be used by
others. He's never really clarified here or on his site, that I've seen.
Which is fine - that's his right.
I just disagree completely with this approach, obviously.
He can criticize my code all he wants (of course, I always welcome
constructive criticism) but at least I give it away for free and don't
restrict people from using it! :)
[Disclaimer: I do ask that people not reproduce it for others to download or
copy simply because in the past I've found it very frustrating to have old
versions of code floating around the web or in print and having
questions/bug fixes/tweaks be sent when in fact the code had already been
updated to address the issues. I prefer to be the single source of
distribution.]
--
Matt Kruse http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com http://www.AjaxToolbox.com
On 04/03/2006 22:56, Matt Kruse wrote: Michael Winter wrote:
I've also been under the general impression that examples posted to
both Usenet and his web site have been usable by others, at least
when credit and original authorship notices are given.
As I understand it, unless stated otherwise, an original work by
someone cannot be used without permission.
Yes, as I understand it, that is precisely true. The author (or more
generally, the copyright holder) has the exclusive right to grant a
license to reproduce a particular work. Without such a license,
reproduction[1] is an infringement upon intellectual property laws.
I had (until now) this unshakable impression that use of Richard's
publicly published work was allowed. If I knew where that impression
came from (possibly a post from him in the past) I'd check, but I don't.
That's why I hoped for clarification from him, directly.
[snip]
Mike
--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.
Michael Winter wrote: On 04/03/2006 22:56, Matt Kruse wrote: Michael Winter wrote: I've also been under the general impression that examples posted to
both Usenet and his web site have been usable by others, at least
when credit and original authorship notices are given.
As I understand it, unless stated otherwise, an original work by
someone cannot be used without permission.
Yes, as I understand it, that is precisely true. The author (or more
generally, the copyright holder) has the exclusive right to grant a
license to reproduce a particular work. Without such a license,
reproduction[1] is an infringement upon intellectual property laws.
---------------^
| Warning: reference to undefined property reproduction[1]
| Source file: <Jw******************@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk >
| Line: 15
SCNR
PointedEars
Matt Kruse said the following on 3/4/2006 6:05 PM: Randy Webb wrote: As for the thread that Matt quoted, I took that as more of Richard's
dis-like of Matt than a "I want money for my code".
Actually, in an unrelated email conversation I had with someone else
regarding scrollable data grids, he reference's Richard's example and said
this:
|http://www.litotes.demon.co.uk/examp...bleScroll.html
|It works on all browsers and all you have to do is apply a class
|to a table! It's exactly what I need but.... I offered the guy
|$1000 for his permission to use it and you know what he said to
|me? He doesn't have time to accept my $1000!!!! Can you believe
|that?! It's already built but he doesn't have time to take my money!!!
I didn't verify this with Richard, but this email in combination with his
post made me conclude that he has no intention of having his code be used by
others. He's never really clarified here or on his site, that I've seen.
Probably so then. But to date, I have never seen anything so unique in
browser scripting that it can't be reproduced. And probably has already
been done. How anybody can claim a copyright to an idea in scripting is
beyond me.
Which is fine - that's his right.
I just disagree completely with this approach, obviously.
Both of us :)
He can criticize my code all he wants (of course, I always welcome
constructive criticism) but at least I give it away for free and don't
restrict people from using it! :)
Exactly.
[Disclaimer: I do ask that people not reproduce it for others to download or
copy simply because in the past I've found it very frustrating to have old
versions of code floating around the web or in print and having
questions/bug fixes/tweaks be sent when in fact the code had already been
updated to address the issues. I prefer to be the single source of
distribution.]
As it should be though.
--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 17:05:51 -0600, "Matt Kruse"
<ne********@mattkruse.com> wrote: Randy Webb wrote:
| He doesn't have time to accept my $1000!!!! Can you believe
|that?! It's already built but he doesn't have time to take my money!!!
I didn't verify this with Richard, but this email in combination with his
post made me conclude that he has no intention of having his code be used by
others.
It does take time, you've got to raise an invoice, you've got to tell
the tax man, you've got to ensure the correct tax is paid, but only
after you've got the money, you've got to get the money - which I'm
sure won't be simply a case of giving an IBAN number for some guy
offering $1000.
So I can understand this viewpoint.
Jim.
On 04/03/2006 12:55, Michael Winter wrote: It would be nice for Richard to state his intentions explicitly, as
I've also been under the general impression that examples posted to
both Usenet and his web site have been usable by others [...]
I was wrong. Only code in the FAQ is freely available. Everything else
is protected under copyright.
Mike
--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.
JRS: In article <2Y********************@comcast.com>, dated Sat, 4 Mar
2006 21:23:10 remote, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Randy Webb
<Hi************@aol.com> posted :
Probably so then. But to date, I have never seen anything so unique in
browser scripting that it can't be reproduced. And probably has already
been done. How anybody can claim a copyright to an idea in scripting is
beyond me.
Merely a fundamental misunderstanding on your part of what copyright
actually means. There's a book by Webster : were it newer, you would
not be allowed to republish it; but you could use the ideas expressed by
its contents - indeed, both my copies give the idea that the word
copyright represents, which you could use.
Copyright applies (for non-fictional material) to republication of the
literary composition, and not to using the ideas that it expresses.
Consider a cookery book. A bookseller can only legally sell copies with
the permission of the author (generally obtained in the routine course
of trade by way of an authorised printer); but a restaurant can sell as
many copies as it likes of the dishes described therein (though if it
advertises that it uses those recipes, it should follow them
competently).
If an idea in scripting is to be protected, other means must be used.
Patenting might apply, and in that case it would be necessary *not* to
publish before the protection was granted.
.. . .
The chap who wanted to buy the code for $1000 might have been considered
somewhat more favourably if he had thoughtfully offered a more
appropriate sum, say £1000 or £500 (those are GBP characters, for the
font-challenged) - or even €1000 (EUR).
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
Dr John Stockton wrote:
<snip> The chap who wanted to buy the code for $1000 might have
been considered somewhat more favourably if he had
thoughtfully offered a more appropriate sum, say £1000
or £500 (those are GBP characters, for the
font-challenged) - or even ?1000 (EUR).
No he wouldn't. I can look up the Pound/Dollar exchange rate fairly
quickly (granted a thousand dollars loses its typographic impact once
converted into Pounds sterling). If he wanted to be taken seriously he
should have not made it clear by his second e-mail that attempting to do
business with him would be disproportionately time-consuming and
involved, or offered remuneration proportionate to the effort implied.
(I don't actually need more money, what I would like is more time :)
Richard.
Matt Kruse wrote: Michael Winter wrote:
I've also been under the general impression that examples posted to
both Usenet and his web site have been usable by others, at least
when credit and original authorship notices are given.
As I understand it, unless stated otherwise, an original work by someone
cannot be used without permission.
If I write a short story and post it to my web site, that wouldn't give
everyone the right to publish it in a magazine without my permission, would
it?. Same goes for code, even if the original author is attributed.
Generally, the right is completely in the hands of the author (unless
the author has sold ALL rights to someone else). And the author of a
work can easily and legally say "Matt can publish my story for no
license fee and make money off it", and also, "Michael may NOT publish
my story at all". There is no requirement that the same rights be given
to different people - it's ALL up to the author.
JRS: In article <du*******************@news.demon.co.uk>, dated Mon, 6
Mar 2006 00:20:14 remote, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Richard
Cornford <Ri*****@litotes.demon.co.uk> posted : Dr John Stockton wrote:
<snip> The chap who wanted to buy the code for $1000 might have
been considered somewhat more favourably if he had
thoughtfully offered a more appropriate sum, say £1000
or £500 (those are GBP characters, for the
font-challenged) - or even ?1000 (EUR).
No he wouldn't. I can look up the Pound/Dollar exchange rate fairly
quickly (granted a thousand dollars loses its typographic impact once
converted into Pounds sterling). If he wanted to be taken seriously he
should have not made it clear by his second e-mail that attempting to do
business with him would be disproportionately time-consuming and
involved, or offered remuneration proportionate to the effort implied.
(I don't actually need more money, what I would like is more time :)
I thought that you might appreciate the courtesy involved in offering to
pay in your own currency. But "somewhat more favourably" does not by
any means imply that your actual decision should have been changed.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
Dr John Stockton said the following on 3/5/2006 4:33 PM: JRS: In article <2Y********************@comcast.com>, dated Sat, 4 Mar
2006 21:23:10 remote, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Randy Webb
<Hi************@aol.com> posted : Probably so then. But to date, I have never seen anything so unique in
browser scripting that it can't be reproduced. And probably has already
been done. How anybody can claim a copyright to an idea in scripting is
beyond me.
Merely a fundamental misunderstanding on your part of what copyright
actually means.
No, the misunderstanding is that you misunderstand my understanding of
what copyright actually means and what it has to do with what I said.
Re-read it and try to comprehend what I wrote before you reply to it again.
If an idea in scripting is to be protected, other means must be used.
Patenting might apply, and in that case it would be necessary *not* to
publish before the protection was granted.
"How anybody can claim a copyright to *an idea* in scripting is beyond
me". I said nothing about the code to implement that idea.
But even then, as for a patent, a patent on a script is next to
worthless. And for the reasons I stated.
--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
Randy Webb wrote: Dr John Stockton said the following on 3/5/2006 4:33 PM:
"How anybody can claim a copyright to *an idea* in scripting is beyond
me". I said nothing about the code to implement that idea.
You're forgetting again that it's about *programming*, not about say
food industry. The "idea" often equals to *algorithm* and algorithm can
perfectly be a copyright subject. There are plenty of samples when a
commercial solution had to be changed because of usage of the same or
even similar algorithm, not the code itself.
VK wrote: You're forgetting again that it's about *programming*, not about say
food industry. The "idea" often equals to *algorithm* and algorithm can
perfectly be a copyright subject. There are plenty of samples when a
commercial solution had to be changed because of usage of the same or
even similar algorithm, not the code itself.
Ignoring for the moment, the elusiveness of the distinction between
"idea" and "expression of an idea", .the fundamental practical point
about copyright is the "copy" part (at least in the UK).
Under UK law, you have copyright in "original literary, dramatic,
musical or artistic works" (includes software).
The key word is "original".
In simple terms: just because we have both happened to produce an
identical algorithm, does not of itself mean that one of us has
necessarily copied the other (I am not saying this is your point, but
that could be inferred).
I.e. "original" means: written by me independently without my having
substantially taken from your efforts. (As an aside, original does not
mean "never been done before" in the copyright context, that is
reserved for patents).
An extreme example: if I could prove that I had lived in a cave for
last 50 years, and in that time had written code which by chance was
exactly the same as Microsoft Windows, under UK copyright law at least,
Microsoft could not stop me selling it: it is my "original" work.
Now "original" is all a matter of evidence, and judges have to work on
whether I am likely to have copied your work on the "balance of
probabilities".
When you are dealing with something as complex as Microsoft Windows or
Shakespeare, it is going to be very difficult for me to persuade a
judge that I did it all by myself. If tracts of my work look very
similar to Microsoft's, a judge will more often than not conclude that
I copied it (it being by far the most likely position), unless I can
convincingly show otherwise.
However, when you deal with smaller sub-sets of a work, the arguments
become more finely balanced. Particularly in relation to computer
software, where there is a vast amount of historical advice and
practice. The likelihood of two software programmers coming up with
very similar looking solutions becomes higher, the smaller the you go.
So most copyright protection seems to revolve around protection of more
extended collections or complex works composed of sub-modules and
functions which in and of themselves are harder to protect.
In summary, for smaller chunks of source code on web sites, yes these
are protected by copyright. But it is going to be harder to defend, as
it is going to be easier for another programmer to argue that they
independently came up with similar code, albeit influenced by your
code.
Regards
Julian Turner
JRS: In article <11**********************@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups .com>
, dated Tue, 7 Mar 2006 00:24:34 remote, seen in
news:comp.lang.javascript, VK <sc**********@yahoo.com> posted :
Randy Webb wrote: Dr John Stockton said the following on 3/5/2006 4:33 PM:
"How anybody can claim a copyright to *an idea* in scripting is beyond
me". I said nothing about the code to implement that idea.
Shoddy quoting. The part in quotation marks "..." was written by Randy
Webb.
You're forgetting again that it's about *programming*, not about say
food industry. The "idea" often equals to *algorithm* and algorithm can
perfectly be a copyright subject. There are plenty of samples when a
commercial solution had to be changed because of usage of the same or
even similar algorithm, not the code itself.
And why Randy Webb feels it necessary to waffle on in response to the
quoted part of my article is obscure.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ??*@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name.
Julian Turner wrote:
<snip> When you are dealing with something as complex as Microsoft
Windows or Shakespeare, it is going to be very difficult for
me to persuade a judge that I did it all by myself. If tracts
of my work look very similar to Microsoft's, a judge will more
often than not conclude that I copied it (it being by far the
most likely position), unless I can convincingly show
otherwise.
<snip>
Assuming that the despite being judged is between the person actually
responsible for authorship and an individual who has copied it, one
factor that may sway the judgement would be the ability of the copier to
explain the code in question. If one party can explain the code in
detail and another cannot then it is going to look like the one who
cannot is not responsible for its creation. This means that if you were
going to copy a script it would be a good idea to completely understand
it, at which point you were probably in a position to actually write the
code yourself anyway.
Richard.
Richard Cornford wrote: This means that if you were
going to copy a script it would be a good idea to completely understand
it, at which point you were probably in a position to actually write the
code yourself anyway.
Absolutely. I think this is may be a particular feature of
programming, because although I don't want to deny the fact that there
is a great deal of individual "style" in programming, and there are a
large number of different ways of achieving similar results, it is more
likely that when several people have a good enough understanding of a
language and programming patterns in general (and I don't count myself
there yet), and they are trying to solve similar concrete problems,
that there will be convergences on similar solutions.
Accordingly, you are more likely to use the code of another if either
you don't have the time or the capability to write it yourself. In
which case, unless it is licenced open source, you should get
permission and if applicable pay.
One might contrast this with the literary world, where I would suggest
that individual "style" makes up a much larger component of the
resulting work than it does in programming, and that the combination of
plots and ways to express a given plot may be an order of magnitude
higher . Hence it will be more difficult to sustain an argument that
because I under stand the basics of - say - English grammar, and have
studied English literature, I happened to idepdently write Shakespeare.
The likelihood is vanishingly small.
Regards
Julian Turner This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Jon Paal |
last post by:
trying to use this script for scrolling tables found at this link:
http://www.litotes.demon.co.uk/example_scripts/tableScroll.html
The top left corner in the table grid is hidden from being...
|
by: taylorcarr |
last post by:
A Canon printer is a smart device known for being advanced, efficient, and reliable. It is designed for home, office, and hybrid workspace use and can also be used for a variety of purposes. However,...
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: aa123db |
last post by:
Variable and constants
Use var or let for variables and const fror constants.
Var foo ='bar';
Let foo ='bar';const baz ='bar';
Functions
function $name$ ($parameters$) {
}
...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
If we have dozens or hundreds of excel to import into the database, if we use the excel import function provided by database editors such as navicat, it will be extremely tedious and time-consuming...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
| |
