|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
> In fact I find the idea of copyrighting AFL somewhat
ridiculous.....
> Tomasz created the language and I purchased the right to use it
when
> I bought AB.... all of it, in any way I see fit.
AFL is simply a medium of expression, just as any spoken language is.
Would you make the same claim of ownership upon the works of a
spanish poet simply because you paid someone to teach you a foreign
language?
You are free to compose your own works, and to reap the personal
rewards from sharing them. However, that does not give you any claim
to the works of anyone else.
Mike
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "brian_z111" <brian_z111@xxx> wrote:
>
> > I think that the larger question is protection of AFL's.
> > Anyway, I'd be interested in others thoughts on this issue.
>
> Thanks for raising the issue ... best to have an open discussion.
>
> I am offended by the idea of copyrighting AFL code.
>
> I like Howard, and I quite like his book, but I didn't like the
fact
> that he tried to claim copyright of the code contained in it.
>
> In fact I find the idea of copyrighting AFL somewhat
ridiculous.....
> Tomasz created the language and I purchased the right to use it
when
> I bought AB.... all of it, in any way I see fit.
>
> I am happy to share, for free, any code that I have 'written' if I
> feel is worthwhile and that I have the time to present it in a
> reasonable way.
>
> I think you will have a problem copyrighting code because you can't
> be certain that I haven't already written anything you may write,
or
> claim to have written, and have it stored on my computer.
> Perhaps someone broke into my computer, stole the code and gave it
to
> you .... I might have to sue you if you claim it is your proprietry
> code.
>
> I don't have a problem with commercial activity though and I am
happy
> to consider purchasing plugins, books, training, financial advice
> etc ... as long as the business is done at another site and only
> referenced, via link, from this forum.
>
>
> Trading knowledge is another matter ... I would sell my trading
> ideas, if it suited me, and I would attempt to copyright the
methods
> (once again that would be difficult to do) but the code I use to
> express, or implement those ideas can't and/or shouldn't be
> copyrighted IMO.
>
>
> Re conflict of commercial/personal interests:
>
> I have experienced conflicting forces in this area.
>
> When I wrote for the UKB, and when I was considering setting up
> another site for AB users, I did have to weigh up the benefit to
> other users against the fact that I was essentially working for AB
> for free and building an valueable commercial asset for AmiBroker.
>
> I still feel that way, even with this forum ... to me it is a trade
> off between the desire to help others, and share trading friendship
> with them, while at the same time realising it is essentially an AB
> support desk and marketing arm.
>
> brian_z
>
>
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "bruce1r" <brucer@> wrote:
> >
> > Progster -
> >
> > Your response addressed DLL's and made good points about
> intellectual
> > property, but IMO you might have missed a point and been a little
> off
> > the larger target.
> >
> > I think that the larger question is protection of AFL's. This is
> > something that Howard Bandy and I discussed with Tomasz at the
> > conference in Feb. I'm going to delve into it a little here
> because I
> > think that it is time to air it again, then I'll offer a quick
point
> > about DLL's.
> >
> > Many have AFL's (trading systems, AND utilities) that they would
> > release if they could protect them. There are two reasons for
> > protecting the source - one obvious and one not so obvious -
> >
> > 1. To charge for the code and for the intellectual property. The
> > market will decide if the price is reasonable or not.
> >
> > 2. To protect the source. Many times others will mod the source
and
> > then tie up author's time with questions about how the original
> > software worked OR why the modified software doesn't work. This
is
> a
> > real problem. I have released a fair amount of AB code in another
> > venue and can relate this problem firsthand.
> >
> > My impression is that Tomasz is reluctant to incorporate AFL
> > protection for a couple of reasons. I won't try to speak for
him,
> but
> > I think that one of his reasons is that he feels that protected
code
> > that possibly had a charge would impede the sharing of code. To
> that
> > all that I can ask is - how much is not now being released because
> > this facility doesn't exist. Howard and I and others have tried
to
> > emphasize this.
> >
> > Now to DLL's. Certainly code can be placed in a DLL to hide it.
It
> > is also fairly easy to protect it. It is just a pain and a
> > productivity hit to convert AFL to a DLL just to protect it. And
in
> > the end, any protection can be broken by a determined hacker.
> > Protection tends to fall into two categories -
> >
> > 1. Wrappers for EXE's and DLL's that implement keyed protection
for
> > existing binaries and require no changes. The protection may or
may
> > not be machine unique. For example, ASPROTECT
> >
> > 2. Embedded protection calls that require changes to the app.
> Several
> > libraries available - some open such as ACTIVELOCK
> >
> > Anyway, I'd be interested in others thoughts on this issue.
> >
> > -- Bruce R
> >
> > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "progster01" <progster@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The discussion so far on "Why so few?" DLLs seems pretty much
> > > on-target to me.
> > >
> > > I would add:
> > >
> > > Ability to program a non-trivial DLL is a marketable skill that
> takes
> > > a long time to develop.
> > >
> > > There are certainly a number of fine examples of free
> contribution to
> > > the AB community in the DLL area (e.g. RMath, for one).
> > >
> > > One can only feel gratitude and appreciation for such "above and
> > > beyond" contributions.
> > >
> > > However, capable DLL authors have the same 24/7/365 limitations
as
> > > everyone else, and must confront a simple choice about
how/where
> to
> > > spend their time and effort: getting paid, or not getting paid.
> > >
> > > Since DLL writing is (almost) platform agnostic, DLL writers in
> the
> > > trading area will have a tendency to code for platforms that
> provide
> > > built-in support for locking a DLL to a customer or software ID.
> > >
> > > I would predict that such "commercializing" integration
features
> would
> > > result in a distinct increase in the number of commercial DLLs
> > > available for AB.
> > >
> >
>
------------------------------------
**** IMPORTANT ****
This group is for the discussion between users only.
This is *NOT* technical support channel.
*********************
TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly to
SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
*********************
For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
For other support material please check also:
http://www.amibroker.com/support.html
*********************************
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:amibroker-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
mailto:amibroker-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
amibroker-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|