DSP Robotics Support

mHz wrote:You void the copyright by posting it for the world to see, and copy.

That's not true, but I know where this thought comes from. In our computer-dominated world you effectively copy something if you save it on a storage medium, but that's not a copy in the definition of the copyright. It's very simple: If there is a product, there also is an originator (which can be a single person, a group of people or even a company), who has to be asked for permission to use the product unless it is already permitted by a licence. On these forums there are no licenses defined, so each originator has to be asked. Or, as Exo prefers, given the opportunity to offer the product somewhere else by explicitly licensing it to Exo's blog.

It's an interesting discussion, but I think that it shouldn't be made overcomplicated.

OK simplified licence for uploaders

If you do not wish your creations to be used, abused and sold by someone somewhere don't upload to the net.

Whether it be modules here or naked pictures to icloud.
Cynical maybe, accurate definitely.

[quote="tulamide"][/quote]
Still don't think you understand..
In sittuation A, the end user viloates the contract by distributing the product.
sittuation B, the end user violates the contract by claiming it is of his own produce.

Xtinct wrote:OK simplified licence for uploaders

If you do not wish your creations to be used, abused and sold by someone somewhere don't upload to the net.

Whether it be modules here or naked pictures to icloud.
Cynical maybe, accurate definitely.

Yea ,
"sold by some darknet alias that left a .ru email adress.

To avoid issues when it comes to the work of inactive members who have not agreed for their work to be hosted on FS Guru, we could just link to the file on the forum. Technically that would get around any issues.

We would need to state that the file is not actually hosted on Flowstone Guru and comes with no license, so full copyright applies and the downloader would themselves need to get permission from the author to redistribute it.

Xtinct wrote:OK simplified licence for uploaders

If you do not wish your creations to be used, abused and sold by someone somewhere don't upload to the net.

Whether it be modules here or naked pictures to icloud.
Cynical maybe, accurate definitely.

Yes but then the majority of the internet would not exist. Call me cynical . (I'm mostly referring to open source licensed code which is the back bone of the web)

i still think that exo's last version is very good, i mean normally GPL is used for things like this but i think this would be frustrating for some people, all work needs to have the same licence and must be opened, a less resrtictive version of it would be the BSD licence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
which is in fact nearly the same as the one exo wrote

Xtinct wrote:OK simplified licence for uploaders

If you do not wish your creations to be used, abused and sold by someone somewhere don't upload to the net.

Whether it be modules here or naked pictures to icloud.
Cynical maybe, accurate definitely.

i think its more simplified for downloaders,

this makes your point about the uploaders pretty clear, its what also happened to the music industry 'people just want to download their music for free no care about the artists' so the artists are idiots when they upload their work and then wondering about that you can get it for free everywhere, all this is also an philosophical question 'the internet must be free' and so on,
and there is a huge community which follows this way, its called the open source community, sadly most of the people misunderstand the thing behind, which means if you use open source and create something out of it you need to give it away with the same licence, this guarants that it will stay opensource, you cannot just take it and do your great business with it without opening the source, while nobody cares what you do private with it.

on the other hand there are people who wants to get everything for free but never give something away for free, and here is the big point, this just doesn't work, or?

if you read exo's license it does, the only restriction is to respect and name the original author and don't resell the FS modules itself, so what we are discussing about?

The schematics are the IP of Outsim.
The defined modules are the IP of Outsim.

The code within the defined dsp, ruby, asm etc modules are the copyright material of the author (you).

In reality, you only have the legal option to publish the "CODE". all other parts are the "Intellectual Property" of Outsim.
We legally do not own the FS program, but their license indicates we own the derived executable/vst plugin.

JB_AU wrote:The schematics are the IP of Outsim.
The defined modules are the IP of Outsim.

The code within the defined dsp, ruby, asm etc modules are the copyright material of the author (you).

In reality, you only have the legal option to publish the "CODE". all other parts are the "Intellectual Property" of Outsim.
We legally do not own the FS program, but their license indicates we own the derived executable/vst plugin.

putting toghether some primitives is also 'code' with the difference that its shown in a graphical way so where should be the difference,
in all other similar languages it is normal that other people sell modules or patches for it, like SE or MAX and i never saw any discussion about this somewhere else... just here we discuss about if the uploader have any rights for his work or not?

should shared modules get used without any credit to the original developer?

i mean also if it public domain its an ethical obligation to credit the original author (at least in the academic area)

I was going to empty my folder at Synthmaker forum, so anything I posted you can guru the heck out of.
Only I can't get there anymore, but I bet you can.