|
As a side note, what are you using to change the properties? I personally use rcedit[^] for that.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
Brisingr Aerowing wrote: what are you using to change the properties?
Per the other post, I used resource hacker.
As a side note, it felt kind of dirty using a program called resource hacker! 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
I think this blog will do the trick. How to Change the Metadata Stored in Executable Files in Windows[^]. The example uses ResEdit Resource Editor - free resource editor for Win32[^] app.
For your main question, I don't see a problem on it, since you didn't claim or remove the ownership of 7-Zip freeware. You just only update the output of the file metadata after using the freeware. You can think as changing dll details(AssemblyTitle, AssemblyCompany, AssemblyCopyright) while you building your app.
[EDIT]
Caution: I wouldn't change the icon though. If you do, It might mislead the original file type by just looking at the icon.
Wonde Tadesse
modified 30-Aug-16 13:16pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the reply! I've already got the resources changed and modified the installer with a label crediting 7-Zip and Mr. Pavlov. It works wonderfully!  (for now!)
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
That's works too.
Wonde Tadesse
|
|
|
|
|
See what the license has to say about that. If you're allowed to use the library while giving credit, go for it. Otherwise, not.
By your description, you aren't faking anything. The properties of YOUR binary indicate you as the author, what's wrong with that?
|
|
|
|
|
What does the license for the open source library say? If you do what's allowed by the license it's neither illegal nor unethical. The open source developer(s) chose the license to release the code under. If they wanted to require credit or to prevent or restrict certain modifications they could have done so.
If you break the license, on the other hand you could potentially be sued. (I'll leave the ethics question to the philosophers).
If I'm understanding your question right I don't think you have an issue. You're not redistributing the open source code in source or binary form correct? You're proposing modifying the open source code to suit your needs and change what it outputs? In that case I am not even sure gpl or lgpl would come into play. I believe (I could be wrong so double check for yourself) they only cover redistribution of the code in source or binary form. If you make modifications and use them internally to accomplish a task I don't think they require you to credit anyone or make your mods available or do anything else. I know MIT and the other less obnoxious licenses would not. I don't use gpl code ever, and rarely use lgpl code so I haven't reviewed those licenses in awhile.
But to repeat, follow the rules and if what you're doing is not prohibited, then it's allowed. Open source authors have ample means to restrict how people use their stuff. I would not overly concern myself with their potential hurt feelings. Just follow the law.
|
|
|
|
|
Here you go, straight from gpl:
Quote: The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work.
and
Quote: You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force.
Does that answer your question?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohh that's interesting. So a piece of his content is actually being distributed with yours? In that case his permission probably is relevant. You're otherwise making what we would call a derivative work and that would implicate copyright law and be governed by the license.
But glad he is ok with it and tell your boss giving him credit is the classy thing to do!
|
|
|
|
|
kmoorevs wrote: Edit: Just to clarify...I am only referring to the properties of the self-extracting executable that is basically just acting as an installer, not any 7-zip libraries. I don't mind having a short blurb in an installer to give credit.
In that case, I really don't see an ethical problem, but I would at least contact 7-zip guys or read the license terms just to be sure.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, someone here (Brisinger) found the exact same issue I had with a statement from the author himself about how to handle it. (he doesn't have a problem with it) I already modified my installer to credit the self-extraction technology used to 7-Zip and it's author.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
Cool, a solution that satisfies both
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
There is a difference between ethical and legal.
The license, to me, makes it clear that copyright notices must be maintained.
And other than that the code can be modified - that is what the license says.
kmoorevs wrote: then I notice the file properties tool-tip on the archives with some undesirable information...Author, Company,
I seriously doubt that that represents copyright information. If it did it would suggest that it was attempting to copyright the file and not the mechanism of the construction. Seems unlikely.
That said lawyers get paid to provide legal advice.
Since it is not a copyright and since it does not provide specific information about the file itself it would actually seem "ethical" to modify it, and somewhat unethical to not do so. After all if you mess up the process then they should blame you not the other other product.
Might note as well that I am unable to re-produce the results with the actual tool. All the information I see when creating an archive relates to me, the person doing the creating and where I created it.
Aside from the above given that you are using it in a commercial application then ethically you should give them some money.
|
|
|
|
|
Movie Quote Of The Day
I got a Twinkie in the car. It's all yours, if you want it
Which movie?
|
|
|
|
|
Christine (1983)[^]
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
When I was six, there were no ones and zeroes - only zeroes. And not all of them worked. -- Ravi Bhavnani
|
|
|
|
|
Disclosing Hugh Hefner's deepest secrets? 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
Must be from a sequel of this: "Tell him about the Twinkie!"[^]
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
Zombieland 2
(And let's hope they finally make it!)
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
|
The remake of Animal House?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Dead twinkie society
In Word you can only store 2 bytes. That is why I use Writer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
