Question about crediting code sources

A while ago, I wrote a script to change the interface on
websudoku.com. In
the past week or so, I've seen two new scripts posted on
userscripts.org
that basically take my script and either use it as a shell
for some new
functionality or add to the original functionality in the
script. 

Great! But no credit appears in the scripts or the
userscript.org entries,
and it bugs the hell out of me. Should it?

Here's my script:
http://www.tweaksthelimbs.org/files/websudokupo
pupnumbers.user.js

Here are the other two:
ht
tp://userscripts.org/scripts/source/3201.user.js
ht
tp://userscripts.org/scripts/source/3306.user.js

Thanks,
Blake
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Question
-about-crediting-code-sources-t1166491.html#a3063594
Sent from the MozDev - greasemonkey forum at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
Greasemonkey mailing list
Greasemonkeymozdev.org
http:
//mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey

This is one of those social+legal things that tends to get
ugly ... As
the copyright owner, you can choose whether or not they're
allowed to
make modifications and if they need to include attribution.
Personally,
I use licenses that don't *require* attribution, but I
appreciate it if
people do.

-Nikolas

blakewest wrote:
> A while ago, I wrote a script to change the interface
on websudoku.com. In
> the past week or so, I've seen two new scripts posted
on userscripts.org
> that basically take my script and either use it as a
shell for some new
> functionality or add to the original functionality in
the script. 
> 
> Great! But no credit appears in the scripts or the
userscript.org entries,
> and it bugs the hell out of me. Should it?
> 
> Here's my script:
> http://www.tweaksthelimbs.org/files/websudokupo
pupnumbers.user.js
> 
> Here are the other two:
> ht
tp://userscripts.org/scripts/source/3201.user.js
> ht
tp://userscripts.org/scripts/source/3306.user.js
> 
> Thanks,
> Blake
_______________________________________________
Greasemonkey mailing list
Greasemonkeymozdev.org
http:
//mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey

On 2/21/06, blakewest <blakewestgmail.com> wrote:
> Great! But no credit appears in the scripts or the
userscript.org entries,
> and it bugs the hell out of me. Should it?

It's within your rights to control the copyright, but for
my opinion,
no.  You should ask them to add it if it really bugs you,
but gosh, I
hope it doesn't get into legalities.

... I wish us.o submissions said something like
"anything you submit
falls under one of these licenses: " and you choose
one.  That
wouldn't have worked at go-live. since at that time us.o
was populated
by spidering links off the wiki, but it could still work on
new
submissions.

In any case... I'd be happy if someone tweaked my script,
and happier
still if us.o supported wiki-style script edits.  ...Some
day. 
Attribution would still be nice.  
_______________________________________________
Greasemonkey mailing list
Greasemonkeymozdev.org
http:
//mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey

On Tue, February 21, 2006 8:07 pm, Nikolas Coukouma said:
> This is one of those social+legal things that tends to
get ugly ... As
> the copyright owner, you can choose whether or not
they're allowed to
> make modifications and if they need to include
attribution. Personally,
> I use licenses that don't *require* attribution, but I
appreciate it if
> people do.
>
> -Nikolas

I tend to agree. While attributions are nice, if you have a
very large
project, the attributions can get excessively long, thus I
don't want to
impose my own sensibilities upon all others. Though none of
my code has
been considered "good" enough to copy, if it
were to be copied without
attribution it would undoubtedly bother me on one hand and
excite me on
the other.

--Chris
_______________________________________________
Greasemonkey mailing list
Greasemonkeymozdev.org
http:
//mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey

Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> On 2/21/06, blakewest <blakewestgmail.com> wrote:
>> Great! But no credit appears in the scripts or the
userscript.org entries,
>> and it bugs the hell out of me. Should it?
> 
> It's within your rights to control the copyright, but
for my opinion,
> no.  You should ask them to add it if it really bugs
you, but gosh, I
> hope it doesn't get into legalities.
> 
> ... I wish us.o submissions said something like
"anything you submit
> falls under one of these licenses: " and you
choose one.  That
> wouldn't have worked at go-live. since at that time
us.o was populated
> by spidering links off the wiki, but it could still
work on new
> submissions.
> 
> In any case... I'd be happy if someone tweaked my
script, and happier
> still if us.o supported wiki-style script edits. 
...Some day. 
> Attribution would still be nice.  

Since "I wish us.o did X" has come up twice in
the last few days ... is
the repository accessible?

I did some poking and found a note that dev.userscripts.org
was down
because WebDAV not playing well with LigHTTPd. If the issue
remains
unresolved, I wouldn't mind setting up a public mirror of
the repository
(probably using Tailor). Trac, AFAIK, doesn't require
WebDAV to work, so
that could still be hosted on the us.o server ...

Just a thought,
-Nikolas
_______________________________________________
Greasemonkey mailing list
Greasemonkeymozdev.org
http:
//mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey

I definitely don't have any legal quibbles about this
situation. Since I did
not include any sort of statement in the code ASKING for
attribution, I
don't see that I can expect someone to have done it. So I
should probably
just forget about this.

Is there a particular license that would be appropriate if I
wanted to
require an attribution (and nothing more) if someone used my
code? 
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Question
-about-crediting-code-sources-t1166491.html#a3068760
Sent from the MozDev - greasemonkey forum at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
Greasemonkey mailing list
Greasemonkeymozdev.org
http:
//mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey

On 2/22/06, blakewest <blakewestgmail.com> wrote:
> Is there a particular license that would be appropriate
if I wanted to
> require an attribution (and nothing more) if someone
used my code?

This is likely to result in a permathread debating the
goodness of
various licenses, but here are a few:
ht
tp://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
http:
//www.opensource.org/licenses/apachepl.php
http:/
/www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-3.0.php
ht
tp://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

I suggest you read some here:
http://opensource.org
/licenses/ and decide which suits you.

Keep in mind, also, that "open source" !=
"Free", and the licenses
above don't require derivatives to be licensed in a way
similar to
your original license.

And with that, I'll retreat in the hopes that only
constructive
responses come.  
_______________________________________________
Greasemonkey mailing list
Greasemonkeymozdev.org
http:
//mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey

> Since "I wish us.o did X" has come up twice
in the last few days ... is
> the repository accessible?

I don't think we've setup the repository again since we
moved to the
new server.  I've been busy working on flock all waking
hours (just
released 0.5.11  and Britt
was working on a HUGE project for his
work.

Sorry :(
_______________________________________________
Greasemonkey mailing list
Greasemonkeymozdev.org
http:
//mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey

On 2/22/2006 7:17 AM, blakewest wrote:
> Is there a particular license that would be appropriate
if I wanted to
> require an attribution (and nothing more) if someone
used my code? 

Creative Commons by Attribution:

http://cr
eativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
_______________________________________________
Greasemonkey mailing list
Greasemonkeymozdev.org
http:
//mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Anthony Lieuallen wrote:
> On 2/22/2006 7:17 AM, blakewest wrote:
>> Is there a particular license that would be
appropriate if I wanted to
>> require an attribution (and nothing more) if
someone used my code?
>
> Creative Commons by Attribution:
>
> http://cr
eativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
Creative Commons licenses are not suitable for software.
http://creativecommons.org/faq#
Can_I_use_a_Creative_Commons_license_for_software?

Cheers,
- -Nikolas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFD/IC7s2zR4YuWmeERAjCyAJ9/2vKhyR4Iz99AaFr46J/0ZjWtsgCf
UNgD
dQFReLZRGYTL540aYBdY0rw=
=5B/j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Greasemonkey mailing list
Greasemonkeymozdev.org
http:
//mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey