This forum is for those wishing to discuss moderation and reporting issues regarding content on the site.
Specifically, discussions on:
Whether a given article is suitable for publishing
Discussions on whether a question should be edited or improved, or simply marked as "not a question" or "Incomplete"
Discussions on members who are causing problems but not to a point where you want to report them as abusive. Maybe you want to discuss how to approach them about the manner in which they ask questions, or their behaviour regarding their articles. Our goal should be to coach members in how to treat the community fairly while ensuring the site is free of debris.
Tips for new moderators
Discussions on overall editorial policy and direction
CodeProject has always erred on the side of being accepting and coaching rather than elitist and insulting, and my intention is to keep it like this.
However, it's important to always encourage appropriate behaviour and stop inappropriate behaviour. This forum is the place to discuss where that line is drawn.
My latest article closed as misleading. What is the "technically inaccurate or misleading" information?
>Your technical blog 'Shell Programming Secrets Nobody Talks About (Part 1)' has been reported by Richard Deeming and has been closed, with the reason being given as This item contains information that is technically inaccurate or misleading.
This was not a mistake; the reason I (and others) reported your article was the comment at the bottom, which is still in the original[^]:
Warning to Richard MacCutchan and allies: Do not get overzealous again and ban this article and my account like you did before. Read the previous warning by Sean Ewington. The same applies for this article too. I have written 29 mostly non-fiction books. I do not have to copy anything from anyone.
Posting personal attacks in your article is not acceptable, which is why it was closed.
Based on the revision history[^], you "Removed note to reviewer" less than two hours after it was closed, which means you knew precisely what the problem was.
I'm starting to feel that a certain long-standing member is posting site-driving spam.
Almost everything he posts(QA answers and forum messages) have at least one link to "slant DOT co", a product suggestion/comparison site which only he seems to use, and every page he links to seems to contain his suggestions and reviews.
(IIRC, he used to regularly post QA answers to MS SQL Server questions which boiled down to "I don't know, but you should use PostgreSQL instead, because I prefer it", until I called him out on it.)
If this were a new member, I'd have no hesitation in reporting him as a spammer. But this member has been here and active for nearly 14 years, and is an MVP.
Hello Chris @chris-maunder ( and/or everyone who may be in charge handling the CPOL related questions),
I'm a long term visitor of Code Project and found lot's of interesting articles and ideas and some also did use some code in my own projects. Of course I try my best to obey to 3rdparty licensing issues / restrictions and found the CPOL 1.02 relatively permissive. I'm now at a bigger company and their legal department is not really happy with the CPOL license and marks it as high risk. I don't know whether this is intended by you as issuer of the license. Mainly they fear that §5.e means that the usage of any code project source code would mean, that the application can't be protected anymore against reverse engineering, although you can use the code ( as I understand it ) freely in any commercial project, unless you refer to the originating source. I would guess that the CPOL is thought comparable to the MIT or Apache 2.0 license. I don't know whether you are aware of this possible restriction and since I guess the intention is to have a big impact in usage of all published code on Code Project I thought you may be aware how the CPOL is seen in some legal departments. I would love to hear any comments on that although I know that this legal stuff is usually the most boring stuff no developer wants to get in touch with voluntarily .
Best regards and thanks for this great web resource,
Mainly they fear that §5.e means that the usage of any code project source code would mean, that the application can't be protected anymore against reverse engineering
TO be honest I can't see how the license would suggest this (and it's not the intention). 5e is basically "if you redistribute the code, make sure the end user is made aware of the license for this code", with a "don't redistribute under different license conditions".
I'm assuming the bit that's at issue is "You may not distribute the Executable Files or Source Code with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License." This relates solely to the Work, meaning the code and article. So (a) it doesn't relate to applications using the Work, just the Work itself, and (b) the Work (the source code) is already being distributed as source, so reverse engineering is moot.
thank's for your clarification and sorry for the late reply. I guess the problem is sometimes the clarification between usage of source code in a disclosed commercial application ( without source distribution ) and redistributing sources with components originally under CPOL. I guess the part
You may not distribute the Executable Files or Source Code with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License.
only applies to source code redistribution ( but also executables are mentioned, I guess if they're part of the original package). But our legal team is very reluctant in these cases and that makes any use of CPOL content very problematic. The only thing that I can tell is that the MIT license is strongly encouraged for use because their demands are very easily to fullfill. Maybe one should emphasize that code usage is allowed in commercial disclosed software similar to MIT ( naming copyright) and that DRM measures are only disallowed in the case that a redistribution of the code/precompiled binaries taken from CPOL project. That seems to confuse our legal team.
In the CPOL the definition is '"Executable Files" refer to the executables, binary files, configuration and any required data files included in the Work.' It's nothing to do with compiling the code into your application. That's all good.
The 'You may not distribute the Executable Files or Source Code with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License' means "you can't try and stop someone accessing the original code if you are distributing that original code". ie don't put the code behind a paywall or say you need to provide your email address to see the original code. Specifically we're only talking about the Work here, so you do what you will with your code, but don't try and control the code you downloaded. It's not yours to control. Given that the code is always freely available here on CodeProject you'd have to be a Muppet to try and control access to something already freely available anyway.
MIT is great. For those using the code. Unfortunately it's terrible for those providing code and looking for protection. We drafted the CPOL in response to cases involving developers who ended up in court due to issues with their free code. We all, deeply, hate that we have to do this. It's like insurance though: you never need it until you do.
thanks for your clarification and sorry again for the late reply ... I simply missed the reply notification. I understand the motivation, didn't know that using MIT license caused problems on the developer side, could only imagine that someone published code which he hadn't complete control over licensing. But as we developers know it gets sometimes ridiculous for simple solutions when legal comes into play. I think because we're still more hardware oriented our legal team is very careful here...
A couple of reviewers have approved it, so it will likely get published soon enough if left alone. However, half a dozen reviewers flagged it for being the wrong type. As it discusses a GitHub repository developed by the author, my guess is that it should be published as a Project rather than an Article. If that is so, one of us should add a comment to that effect. I would have done it but am unclear as to the policy on this. And I think converting it to a Project effectively means republishing its GitHub README. Another option would be to change it to a Reference, which is one choice in the article editor's drop-down menu, along with Tip/Trick. But I've never seen a Reference, so I don't know if that is an acceptable alternative.
The question keeps popping on top of Q&A forum with no apparent change.
As the only solution from august is number 30, I suspect a reputation point hunter is continuously adding and rgen deleting new solutions.
Can someone check the reason of such behavior ?
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Albert Einstein
It is a framework with no download, and the GitHub repository only contains tests. I thought I found a DLL when I was looking at it the last time, but no source code. I don't know if the code is private or commercial, but someone else should look into this.