|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Love it!
Picked it up quickly on good old Wikipedia.
Little lights are coming on all over the world.
None of us can see the entire picture.
The seed was sown near the end of the 19th Century ... 2K was the
coming out party but the seed sowers are far more interesting to me.
Hats off to Li_Chen Wang.
My generation was socially and noisily rebellious (The Doors etc).
I wasn't fully aware of the quiet revolution going on today, via IT.
Thanks so much for clueing me in.
brian_z
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Paul Ho" <paul.tsho@xxx> wrote:
>
> ZZ.
> Heard of Copyleft? GNU saw what is needed, invented a very strong
> legal condition for all their software, well ahead of its time. You
> should be pleased with that. Check out with google.
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "brian_z111" <brian_z111@>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Do you still remember the rise of the phoenix?
> >
> > No, didn't know that one but I like it .... it's a great story,
> > thanks.
> >
> > My view is that 'copyright' is harder than ever to enforce in the
> IT
> > age ... companies should go with the flow ... what they lose on
> the
> > swing they can gain on the roundabout ... many don't seem to
> > understand the new demographic even when is shoved in their
> facebook.
> >
> >
> > example:
> >
> > IMO instead of fighting file swapping music companies should get
> on
> > the bandwagon and release new bands at the garage level via
> youtube
> > etc ... margins on CD are very low anyway ... development costs
> and
> > risks are slashed on the net ... if the band ends up on a
> gazillion
> > cell phones then tour with them and make the money from concerts
> and
> > tee shirts etc.
> >
> > There are more ways than ever for talented hard working people to
> get
> > paid on the net ... why fight over old turf that the kids don't
> want
> > anyway.
> >
> > brian_z
> >
> >
> > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Paul Ho" <paul.tsho@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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@>
> > > 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/
|