|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
ZZ,
Do you still remember the rise of the phoenix?
Not the bird, but phoenix bios
When the PC was first created, IBM bios - heavily copyrighted, was
successfully re-engineered by a very little known company. IBM didnt
succeed in stopping phoenix, because phoenix re-engineering team
consist of two sub-team, team 1 is allowed to see the bios, and its
task is to re-engineered the specifications of the bios from the
source. team two never saw the source codes, but develop it version
of the bios completely from the specs, Hence the birth of the modern
personal computing era.
You can never patent or copyright ideas. only implementation of
ideas, translating from pseudo code to actual source is not copying,
there are a lot of creativity involved.
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "brian_z111" <brian_z111@xxx>
wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> Yes, I wondered about copyright of code compared to poetry, prose
etc.
>
> Yes, I am respectful of peoples intellectual efforts.
>
> BUT!
>
> English is in the public domain .... AFL is owned by AmiBroker?
>
> I doubt if anyone can make it stick that I can't use AFL to write
> anything I want to write.
>
> I imagine it is an argument that rages between and amongst
> programmers (individual and corporate).
>
>
> brian_z
>
>
>
>
> -- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Mike" <sfclimbers@> wrote:
> >
> > > 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@>
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/
|