|
You must be joking. This site is visited by thousands of people, of even much much more. I don't think any author (of a more famous snippet) would be happy replying all day to license requests. Besides, what happens if you find a code snippet, but the author doesn't reply for a week or more, but you need that snippet NOW in your work/hobby project.
To the problem of "who uses it for what", well, a license could say that the one who takes the snippet has to NOTIFY the author by email of including the snippet in their project.
Though I have a feeling many people are ripping code from this side and not even caring of the license, just cut&pasting.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought I read that the default CP licence was free for reuse anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, maybe not exactly, from the FAQ:
# Can I use code snippets and programs in my own work?
You can use code snippets and source code downloads in your applications as long as
* You keep all copyright notices in the code intact.
* You do not sell or repulish the code or it's associated article without the author's written agreement
* You agree the code is provided as-is without any implied or express warranty.
Some authors may also have specific restrictions on using code in commercial apps such as providing credit in documentation or sending them an email first.
It's still not clear to me, whether the "do not sell the code" means "do not sell your program including the downloaded code snippet" or just "do not sell the code snippet by itself". Additionally, no license is mentioned in any of the code snippet's headers.
|
|
|
|
|
akhilkh@hotmail.com wrote:
You can use code snippets and source code downloads in your applications as long as
* You keep all copyright notices in the code intact
That sentence is the answer.
If there are no copyright/license notices, you may use the snippets.
akhilkh@hotmail.com wrote:
You do not sell [...] the code [...] without the author's written agreement
If you're not sure whether or not to sell the compiled code, just don't do it.
The author could have included a license notice, and if he/she didn't include it, he/she wants to be asked (no matter how many mails per week it means).
_________________________________
Please inform me about my English mistakes, as I'm still trying to learn your language!
|
|
|
|
|
I am referring to the "email" link you see at the bottom of this message and all others which allows you to email directly to a person rather than replying in public.
I'm getting very tired of people clicking on the direct "EMAIL" link instead of asking their question in an article forum where it can benefit others. 9 times out of 10 now when I get an email from someone about an article or in reply to a posting in an article message board it's a direct email.
I used to be confused as to how they could do that because I would follow the link back from the email I got but wouldn't see their message posted until I realized that quite stupidly CP allows a person to just email right off the post directly.
This completely defeats one of the main strengths of having a public discussion in each articles message board.
I also do not want anyone emailing me directly, I'm not a help service, I'm a professional with very little spare time on my hands, I am happy to post a reply to someone in a public forum that will benefit others, but I most certainly am NOT happy helping people one on one.
Why is CP shooting itself in the foot with this feature? And more importantly when will it be removed, immediately would be a fine for me!
"A preoccupation with the next world pretty clearly signals an inability to cope credibly with this one."
-- modified at 11:24 Wednesday 21st September, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
I agree.
But first, I'd rather see my email address removed from reply notifications too.
I don't mind having an email link on my CP profile page but I'd rather my email address didn't get sent to everybody I post a reply to.
Michael
CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
|
|
|
|
|
See, this is why i filter my email. I should post an article about that... 
That said, it's nice on occasion to be able to take a conversation off-line. Though as Butler noted, it would be better if there was finer control over who got sent your email address...
|
|
|
|
|
Shog9 wrote:
it's nice on occasion to be able to take a conversation off-line.
Sure, but what has that got to do with what I posted? Anyone can click on the user icon, and send a private email, they should not be able to do that easily from the article message board which was my point. It defeats the entire purpose of having a public forum where people can learn from others. It's about as negative codeproject as you can get and on top of that it's annoying as hell for those of us without the time or inclination to deal one on one with people.
We are faced with the decision of whether or not to just ignore those private emails or to confirm our private email address by replying to them saying "please post this in the forum where it will benefit others when I answer it...".
Are you arguing in favor of a feature which goes against the grain of codeproject and helping others or have you just not thought it through very much before posting? 
"A preoccupation with the next world pretty clearly signals an inability to cope credibly with this one."
|
|
|
|
|
Just quit smoking? 
My point was two-fold (hence the use of two sentences to represent it):
1) The private reply feature is nice to have, on occasion.
2) Giving my email address to anyone i reply to is less than desirable.
If you say #1 would be better accomplished via a link from the profile page (or some other less-obvious manner), i won't disagree. But it is useful, and i'd hate to see it eliminated completely - regardless of how much you hate getting email.
|
|
|
|
|
Shog9 wrote:
Just quit smoking?
how *ever* did you guess? 
My point is a lot of people jump into a discussion pointlessly.
I was clearly not advocating getting rid of private emails, that is a function of the user profile, no need to change that and not under discussion which was all about how the message boards for articles are being needlessly watered down by not having all communication about an article go through that article's publicly viewable discussion board.
What you did in effect was water down my suggestion by going off on a tangent that didn't apply here.
"A preoccupation with the next world pretty clearly signals an inability to cope credibly with this one."
|
|
|
|
|
John Cardinal wrote:
I was clearly not advocating getting rid of private emails, that is a function of the user profile
Used to be a link from those, but i think it disappeared after someone started spamming from them... It's been a while though.
John Cardinal wrote:
What you did in effect was water down my suggestion by going off on a tangent that didn't apply here.
Yeah... i do that. 
|
|
|
|
|
Does the messages posted count decrease when a message gets deleted? Inquiring minds need to know. And no, I ain't gonna test it.
"If only one person knows the truth, it is still the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi Web - Blog - RSS - Math
|
|
|
|
|
Not now that messages are marked "Message Deleted"
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
do you ever feel like your life is missing that tiny little piece of paper that you fold up to put under the wobbly leg of the dinner table...
|
|
|
|
|
Could we have a list of articles rated as tutorial/beginner, or maybe it could be added to the article search criteria?
Thanks.
Elaine (desperately learning fluffy tigress)
The tigress is here 
|
|
|
|
|
Here's one[^] I prepared earlier.
(and look! A bug!  )
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
do you ever feel like your life is missing that tiny little piece of paper that you fold up to put under the wobbly leg of the dinner table...
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Chris, I have been sent this link before but how do you find it from the front page?
I can't find it there, in the articles serch or the site map 
The tigress is here
|
|
|
|
|
On the front page, there is a table titled "Latest Tutorials", right above the Industry News section. You can't click on the title, but if you click on the arrow at the top right of the table, it takes you to the Tutorials[^] page.
Jon Sagara
As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
Sagara.org | Blog | My Articles
J.O.N.S.A.G.A.R.A.: Journeying Operational Neohuman Skilled in Assassination, Galactic Analysis and Rational Astrophysics
|
|
|
|
|
Bah, that's too easy - we should have to hold CTRL+ALT+PrntScrn while clicking that little arrow...
|
|
|
|
|
It would be really useful if the article stats were shown on the member's articles pages.
----------------------------
Be excellent to each other
|
|
|
|
|
One of my articles has been on the receiving end of some 1 votes. The annoying part about this is that they didn't have the decency to explain why they felt that the article/code was so poor. So I'd like to suggest that it should be made compulsory to leave a comment when giving an article a 1 rating even if it is just to say "I gave you a 1 as I think your a tosser"
"I think I speak on behalf of everyone here when I say huh?" - Buffy
|
|
|
|
|
My guess about some possible reasons for someone to do this (in general):
* Author annoyed the voting member with some comment in the past, and this is a simple case of revenge.
* Voter has a competing article in the same category and wants to vote the author down to lower their rating. Possibly related to ensuring their article or other articles they prefer instead to make it into the monthly article competition.
* Voter thinks the rating is too high. They likely don't think the article is a 1. They just want to knock down the rating for no particular reason at all.
Basically, I am saying that some people have an agenda when voting. They have some kind of bias. For example, I think some people will vote for an author higher, if they have something in common with the author (e.g., nationality).
I'd like to see membership levels granted solely on the basis of article and message count, not length of membership. And restrict voting to members who have contributed something - messages and/or articles. People with 0/0 should not be allowed to vote.
I'd also like to see a volunteer panel of CodeProject members/staff that ensures an unbiased component to the rating of any article.
|
|
|
|
|
The general consensus on this is that forcing people to comment on a "1" vote will mean you will have lots of:
1 - asdfsdfg
comments.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
do you ever feel like your life is missing that tiny little piece of paper that you fold up to put under the wobbly leg of the dinner table...
|
|
|
|
|
Although it certainly would not hurt to display some text to them when they do vote a 1 to the effect of "It is most helpful to the author if you post a comment explaining how the article could be improved" with an easy link or something so it's optional but reminded to them.
"A preoccupation with the next world pretty clearly signals an inability to cope credibly with this one."
|
|
|
|
|
What's the possibility of allowing authors to update their own articles themselves, even after they have been edited/moved by CodeProject staff? Much like how unedited article submissions work right now.
It just seems like this would be a quicker way of getting the latest fixes out to members, as I suspect the typical update is something simple like a replacement zip file with bug fixes/minor features, and no changes to article text except for maybe the history section. The updated article could still go into a queue for eventual review by the editors.
|
|
|
|
|
After an update, the article should be marked "changed", or it could go back to "unedited contributions" until the next review.
_________________________________
Please inform me about my English mistakes, as I'm still trying to learn your language!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
