Uh... am I missing something here? It says SPECIFICALLY on the author's site (it's part of the Symbulator website) that this program cannot be distributed. So, ticalc.org staff, you should probably take this program off the archives immediately, and change it to a link to his website, per the author's wishes.

Those of you who may have noticed an Address Error while swapping with an empty stack, go get the updated version (it doesn't say it's updated, but apparently the download is updated), to fix this.

I think that since he doesn't want any of his programs on TiCalc.org, and since his site is HOSTED by TiCalc.org, his site should be removed IMMEDIATELY! I don't see why you guys can take this from a HOSTED site anyway.

Just a suggestion.

It's not HIS site that is hosted, it's just that the person who hosts it put it on a page because he's the author's friend.

I also don't see what good would result from taking off the hosted site? I know that Symbulator is a very popular program, and this would simply infuriate many other users - and the problem just stemmed from a simple request not to post the program at a big site.

Personally, I think we should just keep this conflict at a low level, instead of all getting mad at each other and deleting this, that, etc...

I feel I must supply a bit of context on this issue. Lars is boycotting ticalc.org because, quite some time ago, I added his file to the archives and *gasp* RENAMED it from laplace89.zip to laplace.zip in order to make it fit our naming scheme more closely. Then I get this angry email from him telling me how that violates his copyrights. Give me a break, please tell me when you can copyright the name of a zip file! I don't remember if it was ever removed but he vowed to boycott ticalc.org. But something that he should know... You can do some things with your copyrighted program. You may specify specifically who may have it on their site; however, if you put it into the public domain, you may not exclude certain sites from posting it (i.e. everyone except ticalc.org may post this). Also, as Nick (Steve) pointed out earlier, the file already resides on ticalc.org, they are just moving it to another location on the same server! Notably, I believe the ticalc.org hosting policy stipulates that hosted sites should have their files in ticalc.org's archives whenever possible, except when impractical (such as prosit.ticalc.org where it would be stupid to have every past version of prosit in the archives). scs.ticalc.org is obviously in violation of the hosting guidelines, and I happen to know that they are violating more than that... Hopefully ticalc.org will remove them as a hosted site. It may not be popular, but there is such a thing as self defense...

Excuse me?

What does this mean?

"scs.ticalc.org is obviously in violation of the hosting guidelines"

I've never received any warning on this respect.

"I happen to know that they are violating more than that..."

What am I violating, Mr. Meyer?

- Roberto:.

Mr. Meyer,

I am waiting for a reply. I demand you to explain me what I am violating.

I'll be absent from 5pm to 11pm, but I'll come back. And I expect to see an explanation to your post above.

- Roberto:.

Well first off you can't demand anything out of me. I don't even work for ticalc.org anymore, I'm just supporting the site. I felt like not posting at all since you are being so immature and demanding about it. However, in the interest of you not covering up your actions, I'll post anyway. If you had actually read (and comprehended) my previous post, you would already understand your first violation of the ticalc.org hosting guidelines. I don't care if you weren't notified. What is this? Is your attitude that it's only a sin if you get caught? Your second violation is not a violation of the contract. But this is because the composers of the contract never dreamed that a hosted site would do something such as scs.ticalc.org (you specifically) threatened to do: to sue and otherwise defraud ticalc.org. The fact that you don't have the legal backing to do such a thing is beside the point. There is no reason why ticalc.org should continue to host a site which threatens to sue them.

Maybe I am more stupid than I thought I was, but I still don't understand what is my first violation. Lars expressly asked me to have his program in my site, and I am free to have it there: there is no violation here.

And about the second violation: I've never thought of demanding TICalc, nor said I'll do so, nor had a reason to do so. Doug and Lars are the owners of the program, and they are grown up people that act for themselves. I speak for myself here.

I'd thank you, Mr. Meyers, if the next time you feel wishes to say that I am violating your hosting guidelines, you at least try to find a stronger argument, which - let's say - is as for a minimum a truth.

- Roberto:.

Also, after reading again the Hosting page of TICalc, I don't see any line that forces me to have my files included in their archives.

- Roberto:.

It's stipulated in the contract that you "sign" to become a hosted site. The only time you're allowed to have files on your site that should be on ticalc.org is if you've submitted them but they're new releases and haven't been put in ticalc.org's archives yet. Otherwise hosting files on your own account is prohibited.

I don't know if you, or anyone, is still reading this thread... I'm a little late. But still:

I will quote from the ticalc.org Hosting Information, in the first question.

"It is our intention not to host "competing" sites (for example, those with separate file archives)."

They don't host sites that compete with them. End of story. Oh and by the way, what kind of site competes with the mother site that so graciously (I say that because it's free and you get more hits for nothing) hosts them?! If I was on the ticalc.org staff, I would delete the hosted site immediately.

- Jeff

No need for that.

:o)

It's over.

I hope this post lasts more than a couple of hours. My last one seems to have been pulled. I'm not sure why, since It was not a hostile message... In fact, I don't know that I broke any of the rules of this sight... I guess we'll see if this one lasts:

"You can do some things with your copyrighted program. You may specify specifically who may have it on their site..." -- Kirk Meyer

Kirk,

Many people are not aware, but a program can be copyrighted AND be released as public domain. For example, a company (or individual) can create a "production quality program" and copyright it. If they choose, they can put their program on the internet for free download by end users. They can also stipulate that their program not be made available as part of a system, part of a special offer, or from another site. (Check Netscape's policy) I won't get involved in the intricacies of copyright claim, but policies are another story.

Respectfully,

Tip DS

I know full well it is possible to have a copyright and have it in the public domain at the same time. In fact, every piece of software produced recently has a copyright whether it contains a copyright message or not (although registering helps you win any court cases quite a bit). However, it is interesting to notice that if you put it into the public domain "except for ticalc.org" then it's not really in the public domain, now, is it?

I'm really not up on this particular incident. I was mainly referring to the previous incident, so I don't know at what point the notice was present on the RPN download page. However, it seems that ticalc.org has respected the notice so there is no longer an issue, except perhaps of whether to allow scs.ticalc.org to continue as a hosted site. You state that someone can exclude certain distributors... but they at least have to warn them! Nothing in the zip file says anything about nondistribution, so how was ticalc.org even supposed to know?

Now, I'm not attacking you, you bring up a valid point. It had been my understanding that the list of licensees could be inclusionary but not exclusionary, but that's probably some rumor from somewhere. =)

Actually, public domain is, by definition, the absence of copyright.

Of course, the same program could exist both as public domain and a copyright work, but there would be no restrictions on what someone could do a public domain version.

Free download does not mean public domain. Not even close.

Most everyone here would be well advised to read the Copyright FAQ, which you can get from the Web Page link above. This is actually not the latest version, but I put this link instead as the main page is currently down. This document cites the actual US laws relevant to its statements, which you can all check if you think it is a fake.

As I forgot to mention, the FAQ also mentions international law, which is general the same as in the US for most purposes.

You put an extra f at the end of that url so it doesn't work. Also, perhaps you could outline the relevant points from that website? I took a look at it and it's not obvious where on the page it addresses public domain or distribution...

Actually, the 'f' is not extra, but part of the incomplete word 'faq'; the length of the URL was apparently over the limit, so adding an 'aq' will get you there. Anyway, the relevant facts are most in part 2, and my brief summary would be:

1) Any original work is copyrighted as soon as it is fixed in a tangible form (e.g. written down on a piece of paper, stored on your hard disk, recoreded on casette tape, etc.)

2) Copyright grants the original author the rights to control the duplication, adaptation (creation of derivative works) and distribution of the work, among other things.

3) Copyright only protects the work itself, not the underlying ideas.

4) A work is copyrighted even if it doesn't have a copyright notice.

5) Something is in public domain if and only if there's no copyright on it.

6) A work only enters public domain if the author explicitly places it in the public domain, or from several other things that don't matter to us (e.g. copyright disappears 50 years after the author's death)

7) Restrictions on distribution are an assertion of copyright, as they stem from the author's right to control distribution of the work

8) This has been established by international treaties involving almost every country, including the United States, Sweden, France, Germany, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Australia, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and many others.

"1) Any original work is copyrighted as soon as it is fixed in a tangible form (e.g. written down on a piece of paper, stored on your hard disk, recoreded on casette tape, etc.)
...
5) Something is in public domain if and only if there's no copyright on it." -- Patrick Davidson

That doesn't seem to make complete sense. Those two items would indicate that nothing is in public domain.

Respectfully,
Tip DS

Sure. Consider the following information also:

1) Every person is a minor when born
...
5) A person is an adult if and only if the person is not a minor

Which clearly indicates that nobody is an adult, right?

No, it doesn't. The point being, of course, that the legal status of a person can change. The same goes for a work of authorship. Even though everything created these days is copyrighted immediately, it could become public domain if the author explicitly puts it in the public domain. However, the current system does result in almost nothing being public domain.

Nonetheless, it probably doens't matter that much, as I don't expect very many calculator software authors to sue for copyright infringement, even though they are technically able to do so.

Wow, you can sue for anything these days. The buzz going around Ann Arbor, MI, USA is a paper boy was delivering a paper when the owners of the house attacked him. The dog was put to sleep under vicious animal laws. The family is sueing the paper boy.

<<3) Copyright only protects the work itself, not the underlying ideas.>>

This is *not* true in general. For example, any software that attempts to imitate the general environment of Mathematica is infringing on its copyright and could be sued. To be even more concrete, if a piece of software uses significantly design ideas from Mathematica, such as naming conventions (not just for two or three functions but for several), the author is violating the copyright.