hello all,
This is my twitter web app on which I have been working for about a month. It is coded entirely in php-curl.It can be used to post tweets, see received tweets,followers, replies etc. of the person whose login name is provided (for posting tweets and seeing replies, one will have to login).
here is the link : http://github.com/pratikone/ipratik-twitter
Screenshots: http://bit.ly/9bSfVW and http://bit.ly/aTNX1I as well as method to install(linux/windows) is given. Still sorting out ways to host it online (buying a domain).
Please have a look and give reviews. this is my first attempt at making a functional web application.
On Thursday 01 July 2010 02:05:11 Pratik Anand wrote:
Please have a look and give reviews. this is my first attempt at making a functional web application.
good - keep it up. Only one thing - I cannot find any license information. What license is it released under? or is it in public domain?
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On Thursday 01 July 2010 02:05:11 Pratik Anand wrote:
Please have a look and give reviews. this is my first attempt at making a functional web application.
good - keep it up. Only one thing - I cannot find any license information. What license is it released under? or is it in public domain?
Pratik, here's a good place to start if you don't know much about licensing:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html
It is verbose, but necessary if you're looking to release FOSS code regularly.
On Thursday 01 July 2010 13:26:55 Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
good - keep it up. Only one thing - I cannot find any license information. What license is it released under? or is it in public domain?
Pratik, here's a good place to start if you don't know much about licensing:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html
It is verbose, but necessary if you're looking to release FOSS code regularly.
that is a bit old. Here is a more recent one - and the book is a must-read for anyone who wants to run an open source project. http://producingoss.com/en/license-choosing.html
Sorry, I totally forgot to add license information. Since it is still under development so haven't given much thought about it. I was originally thinking to release it under gnu/gpl v3 but thanx to links provided by you ppl, will first have a look at all the available licenses and then put up.
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On Thursday 01 July 2010 13:26:55 Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
good - keep it up. Only one thing - I cannot find any license information. What license is it released under? or is it in public domain?
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Pratik Anand pratik.preet@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, I totally forgot to add license information.
Does it mean the current version is under public domain ?
As per my knowledge, if you forget to add license information then the work goes to public domain.
Any comments ?
On Thursday 01 July 2010 15:14:03 narendra sisodiya wrote:
Sorry, I totally forgot to add license information.
Does it mean the current version is under public domain ?
As per my knowledge, if you forget to add license information then the work goes to public domain.
no - according to Indian law, one has to explicitly throw the work into public domain. At present he has the copyright to the application, and since he has not licensed it and given permission for people to download, use and modify it, anyone doing so is breaking the law.
ok, so for making it publicly available, I have to include a license file (say gpl v3) with the soure at github and mention it on the app's website?
no - according to Indian law, one has to explicitly throw the work into
public domain. At present he has the copyright to the application, and since he has not licensed it and given permission for people to download, use and modify it, anyone doing so is breaking the law. -- Regards Kenneth Gonsalves Senior Associate NRC-FOSS at AU-KBC -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
2010/7/1 Pratik Anand pratik.preet@gmail.com:
ok, so for making it publicly available, I have to include a license file (say gpl v3) with the soure at github and mention it on the app's website?
you'll also need to put a mini gpl(or other) license statement, and mention your copyright notice at the beginning of every source code file in the project.
Anurag
On Thursday 01 July 2010 15:55:48 Pratik Anand wrote:
ok, so for making it publicly available, I have to include a license file (say gpl v3) with the soure at github and mention it on the app's website?
for BSD type licenses, yes - I think GPL you have to put it in every file of the site (not too sure)
On 01-Jul-2010, at 3:21 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Thursday 01 July 2010 15:14:03 narendra sisodiya wrote:
Sorry, I totally forgot to add license information.
Does it mean the current version is under public domain ?
As per my knowledge, if you forget to add license information then the work goes to public domain.
no - according to Indian law, one has to explicitly throw the work into public domain. At present he has the copyright to the application, and since he has not licensed it and given permission for people to download, use and modify it, anyone doing so is breaking the law.
Nopes, since he has put the details of it on a public mailing list that is searchable on google, etc, he has implicitly given permission to download and use it, not ofcourse to modify it. He still owns the copyright to the code.
-- Regards Kenneth Gonsalves Senior Associate NRC-FOSS at AU-KBC -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
He has said, "please have a look" and "give reviews" - nothing implicit about it. I would say that that was a pretty explicit invitation. Sanjay
On 1 July 2010 18:45, Saswata Banerjee & Associates < scrapo@saswatabanerjee.com> wrote:
On 01-Jul-2010, at 3:21 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Thursday 01 July 2010 15:14:03 narendra sisodiya wrote:
Sorry, I totally forgot to add license information.
Does it mean the current version is under public domain ?
As per my knowledge, if you forget to add license information then the
work
goes to public domain.
no - according to Indian law, one has to explicitly throw the work into
public
domain. At present he has the copyright to the application, and since he
has
not licensed it and given permission for people to download, use and
modify
it, anyone doing so is breaking the law.
Nopes, since he has put the details of it on a public mailing list that is searchable on google, etc, he has implicitly given permission to download and use it, not ofcourse to modify it. He still owns the copyright to the code.
-- Regards Kenneth Gonsalves Senior Associate NRC-FOSS at AU-KBC -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
On Thursday 01 July 2010 20:20:08 Sanjay Singhvi wrote:
He has said, "please have a look" and "give reviews" - nothing implicit about it. I would say that that was a pretty explicit invitation.
precisely - he says, have a look, give reviews - he does not say that you are free to download, use, modify, redistribute etc, etc. Like when going to a car show room they say - take a drive, have a look - doesn't mean they are giving you the car.
btw, kindly refrain from top posting
On Thursday 01 July 2010 18:45:28 Saswata Banerjee & Associates wrote:
no - according to Indian law, one has to explicitly throw the work into public domain. At present he has the copyright to the application, and since he has not licensed it and given permission for people to download, use and modify it, anyone doing so is breaking the law.
Nopes, since he has put the details of it on a public mailing list that is searchable on google, etc, he has implicitly given permission to download and use it, not ofcourse to modify it. He still owns the copyright to the code.
the prosecution would argue that he has only asked people to preview/comment on the app and the permission to download was only for this limited purpose.
On 02-Jul-2010, at 10:22 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Thursday 01 July 2010 18:45:28 Saswata Banerjee & Associates wrote:
no - according to Indian law, one has to explicitly throw the work into public domain. At present he has the copyright to the application, and since he has not licensed it and given permission for people to download, use and modify it, anyone doing so is breaking the law.
Nopes, since he has put the details of it on a public mailing list that is searchable on google, etc, he has implicitly given permission to download and use it, not ofcourse to modify it. He still owns the copyright to the code.
the prosecution would argue that he has only asked people to preview/comment on the app and the permission to download was only for this limited purpose.
I think you stated that he has the copyright. That means he owns the code and you can not modify or copy / distribute it. It does not mean that you can not use the software (not just code) after he has allowed a download. It would amount to saying you can not read the book he has given to you as the copyright is his.
In any case, no court in India will accept the statement saying they were asked to preview and not to use. Specially not in the light of the contents of the mail he had sent and the fact that he sent it to ILUG
-- Regards Kenneth Gonsalves Senior Associate NRC-FOSS at AU-KBC -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Saswata Banerjee & Associates < scrapo@saswatabanerjee.com> wrote:
On 02-Jul-2010, at 10:22 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Thursday 01 July 2010 18:45:28 Saswata Banerjee & Associates wrote:
no - according to Indian law, one has to explicitly throw the work into public domain. At present he has the copyright to the application, and since he has not licensed it and given permission for people to
download,
use and modify it, anyone doing so is breaking the law.
Nopes, since he has put the details of it on a public mailing list that
is
searchable on google, etc, he has implicitly given permission to
download
and use it, not ofcourse to modify it. He still owns the copyright to
the
code.
the prosecution would argue that he has only asked people to
preview/comment
on the app and the permission to download was only for this limited
purpose.
I think you stated that he has the copyright. That means he owns the code and you can not modify or copy / distribute it. It does not mean that you can not use the software (not just code) after he has allowed a download. It would amount to saying you can not read the book he has given to you as the copyright is his.
<INAL>
you have used two sentence "read the book" & "user the software"
i think, "read the book" is well defined but "use the software" is not. For example, My 10 year friend has downloaded his code. Now he do not know how to use the software. (this include setting LAMP and launching app from client) Unless there are precise note on "How to use the software" at source code , we cannot/shouldn't assume "how to use the software". If I have a PHP to QT/Java/ruby converter then I can process his files to generate new software.
It simply means one has to provide a license which tell you about what you can do with the saftware
</INAL>
In any case, no court in India will accept the statement saying they were asked to preview and not to use. Specially not in the light of the contents of the mail he had sent and the fact that he sent it to ILUG
ok, regarding all the confusion related to licensing . I am going to include gnu/gpl v3 with the src code and mention it in every file. and the app is in public domain, free to use, redistribute,modify and improve. Anyways,, one can always test it online on the link I had provided earlier
http://pratikanand.co.cc/ipratik/login.php
2010/7/2 Pratik Anand pratik.preet@gmail.com:
ok, regarding all the confusion related to licensing . I am going to include gnu/gpl v3 with the src code and mention it in every file. and the app is in public domain, free to use, redistribute,modify and improve.
I don't think the app can be both GPL and in public domain. but then INAL.
Anurag
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Anurag anurag@gnuer.org wrote:
2010/7/2 Pratik Anand pratik.preet@gmail.com:
ok, regarding all the confusion related to licensing .
chill, We were just discussing.. to explore more...
I am going to include
gnu/gpl v3 with the src code and mention it in every file. and the app is in public domain, free to use, redistribute,modify and improve.
I don't think the app can be both GPL and in public domain. but then INAL.
As per my knowledge, I may be wrong, If something is "not copyrighted" then it becomes public domain. License comes into action when somebody has full rights (ie copyrights) and he want to give some limited freedom to enjoy some software under some terms and conditions. (ie license). If somebody do not include any license then it means he is not permitting anything. If somebody is not including copyright then it means it means that software is public domain. As KG said, in Indian Law, we must tell that some page/software is under public domain. If somebody is not including copyright notice then it is not under private domain, nor it is under public domain then where it will fall?
On Friday 02 July 2010 22:55:27 narendra sisodiya wrote:
As KG said, in Indian Law, we must tell that some page/software is under public domain. If somebody is not including copyright notice then it is not under private domain, nor it is under public domain then where it will fall?
Exactly the opposite conclusion.
The act of communicating to the public automatically entitles the author to a copyright. It is therfore private domain. No specific act other than the act of publishing is required to obtain copyright. If you dont publish, you specifically require to register with the Registrar of copyrights.
And when published by someone else without licence it shall not be deemed to have been communicated to the public.
Thus the act of publishing automatically entitles you to maximum protection and you automatically exclude everybody from copying and usage.
It will be deemed to be public domain only under a specific set of cirumstances excluding the above. Circumstances include death, expiration of copyright or specific assignment to public domain.
This is perfectly logical. The copyright act is designed to allow access of literary works by the public without removing any rights of the author, unless he specifically chooses to do so.
Also when you broadcast / offer for use, you automatically allow fair use - copying for personal use / archiving etc. Thus any measures that prevent fair use (DRM) could be challenged in court. The IPR act contradicts the copyright act by imposing criminal penalties on "circumvention of technological measures"
http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf
http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/handbook.html
On Friday 02 July 2010 22:55:27 narendra sisodiya wrote:
I don't think the app can be both GPL and in public domain. but then INAL.
As per my knowledge, I may be wrong,
you are wrong
If something is "not copyrighted" then it becomes public domain.
the moment you publish anything, you automatically get copyright of it whether you like it or not, or mention it or not
License comes into action when somebody has full rights (ie copyrights) and he want to give some limited freedom to enjoy some software under some terms and conditions. (ie license). If somebody do not include any license then it means he is not permitting anything. If somebody is not including copyright then it means it means that software is public domain.
license comes when he either gives limited freedom (as in GPL) or full freedom (as in BSD). In both cases he retains the copyright - the license will not transfer the copyright. If someone does not include copyright, he still has copyright and it does not mean the software is public domain.
As KG said, in Indian Law, we must tell that some page/software is under public domain.
correct
If somebody is not including copyright notice then it is not under private domain, nor it is under public domain then where it will fall?
private domain - whether he says so or not he has copyright and if he does not specify a license it means he has not licensed you to use it.
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On Friday 02 July 2010 22:55:27 narendra sisodiya wrote:
I don't think the app can be both GPL and in public domain. but then INAL.
As per my knowledge, I may be wrong,
you are wrong
If something is "not copyrighted" then it becomes public domain.
the moment you publish anything, you automatically get copyright of it whether you like it or not, or mention it or not
License comes into action when somebody has full rights (ie copyrights) and he
want
to give some limited freedom to enjoy some software under some terms and conditions. (ie license). If somebody do not include any license then it means he is not permitting anything. If somebody is not including
copyright
then it means it means that software is public domain.
license comes when he either gives limited freedom (as in GPL) or full freedom (as in BSD).
We cannot say like this. which license has more freedom. If you think a developer who want social work then BSD is best option. Let you develop something and throw to the whole world irrespective of the fact that world is not good as you are. I never get any benefit from huge profit making companies (mostly) so why should I code with a license which permit them to reuse in any manner. The idea of GPL was to create a "*close community*" of hacker and users where we all share our knowledge and software. If anybody want to reuse our software, YES my dear most welcome, join this "close community" and become like us. The GPL was intended to make a "Viral Community". Well I am not opposing those who license their code under BSD but I am commenting on your comment on GPL ('Limited freedom') . Who says you have limited freedom with GPL. There is one Viral Statement in GPL. Which is good.
On Saturday 03 July 2010 4:33:30 pm narendra sisodiya wrote:
We cannot say like this. which license has more freedom.
Well actually you can, the GPL limits you to release your derivative work under the same license, whereas the BSD license dosnt have such a restriction. and is therefore offers more freedom to the licensees.
if you think a developer who want social work then BSD is best option. Let you develop something and throw to the whole world irrespective of the fact that world is not good as you are. I never get any benefit from huge profit making companies (mostly) so why should I code with a license which permit them to reuse in any manner. The idea of GPL was to create a "*close community*" of hacker and users where we all share our knowledge and software. If anybody want to reuse our software, YES my dear most welcome, join this "close community" and become like us. The GPL was intended to make a "Viral Community". Well I am not opposing those who license their code under BSD but I am commenting on your comment on GPL ('Limited freedom') . Who says you have limited freedom with GPL. There is one Viral Statement in GPL. Which is good.
However whether GPL or the BSD license is "Good" or "Bad" depends on the intentions of the Author as you mentioned.
-Yohan
2010/7/3 narendra sisodiya narendra@narendrasisodiya.com:
We cannot say like this. which license has more freedom. If you think a developer who want social work then BSD is best option. Let you develop something and throw to the whole world irrespective of the fact that world is not good as you are. I never get any benefit from huge profit making companies (mostly) so why should I code with a license which permit them to reuse in any manner.
You must respect the original developer's wisdom and choice of license. What's good for you may not be good for her. There could be a dozen reason why she'd choose BSD over GPL.
Anurag
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Anurag anurag@gnuer.org wrote:
2010/7/3 narendra sisodiya narendra@narendrasisodiya.com:
We cannot say like this. which license has more freedom. If you think a developer who want social work then BSD is best option. Let you develop something and throw to the whole world irrespective of the fact that
world
is not good as you are. I never get any benefit from huge profit making companies (mostly) so why should I code with a license which permit them
to
reuse in any manner.
You must respect the original developer's wisdom and choice of license. What's good for you may not be good for her. There could be a dozen reason why she'd choose BSD over GPL.
I am not saying that every developer should use BSD. I was just comment on the comment made by KG that GPL give less freedom. Those those who want ultimate freedom then public domain is the best suitable place. Code and release under public domain. Btw both are Free Software licences and approved by FSF.
On Saturday 03 Jul 2010, narendra sisodiya wrote:
We cannot say like this. which license has more freedom. If you think a developer who want social work then BSD is best option. Let you develop something and throw to the whole world irrespective of the fact that world is not good as you are. I never get any benefit from huge profit making companies (mostly) so why should I code with a license which permit them to reuse in any manner. The idea of GPL was to create a "*close community*" of hacker and users where we all share our knowledge and software. If anybody want to reuse our software, YES my dear most welcome, join this "close community" and become like us. The GPL was intended to make a "Viral Community". Well I am not opposing those who license their code under BSD but I am commenting on your comment on GPL ('Limited freedom') . Who says you have limited freedom with GPL. There is one Viral Statement in GPL. Which is good.
Ah, long time since we had a BSD vs GPL flamewar!
/me gets the popcorn and sells tickets to the show at the door.
On Saturday 03 July 2010 18:51:28 Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) wrote:
On Saturday 03 Jul 2010, narendra sisodiya wrote:
We cannot say like this. which license has more freedom. If you think a developer who want social work then BSD is best option. Let you develop something and throw to the whole world irrespective of the fact that world is not good as you are. I never get any benefit from huge profit making companies (mostly) so why should I code with a license which permit them to reuse in any manner. The idea of GPL was to create a "*close community*" of hacker and users where we all share our knowledge and software. If anybody want to reuse our software, YES my dear most welcome, join this "close community" and become like us. The GPL was intended to make a "Viral Community". Well I am not opposing those who license their code under BSD but I am commenting on your comment on GPL ('Limited freedom') . Who says you have limited freedom with GPL. There is one Viral Statement in GPL. Which is good.
Ah, long time since we had a BSD vs GPL flamewar!
/me gets the popcorn and sells tickets to the show at the door.
BSD is devilish. In the short term it hooks the crooked. After the smartasses have put their money and got used to the fat life, it pulls the rug. M$ used the bsd tcp stack mangled it and corraled themselves in. 15 years later they are trapped and asphyxiating.
Ofcourse in the short term such things make life difficult for everybody else.
So does BSD offer any advantage to a freesoftware developer. None. Infact you are prevented from using the much larger gpl codebase. Whereas if you are using gpl, nothing stops you from using bsd codebases.
So why screw yourself?
On Saturday 03 Jul 2010, jtd wrote:
On Saturday 03 July 2010 18:51:28 Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) wrote:
Ah, long time since we had a BSD vs GPL flamewar!
/me gets the popcorn and sells tickets to the show at the door.
BSD is devilish.
Will the BSD advocates in the Blue corner please stand up and rebut JTD's arguments? Ad hominem, insulting posts that make analogies in completely unrelated fields (e.g. cars and engines, feeding a cat, examining elephant turds for signs of extra-terrestrial intelligence, etc.) preferred!
BTW, the ticket price just went up!
-- Raju
On Sunday 04 July 2010 11:25:11 Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) wrote:
On Saturday 03 Jul 2010, jtd wrote:
On Saturday 03 July 2010 18:51:28 Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) wrote:
Ah, long time since we had a BSD vs GPL flamewar!
/me gets the popcorn and sells tickets to the show at the door.
BSD is devilish.
Will the BSD advocates in the Blue corner please stand up and rebut JTD's arguments? Ad hominem, insulting posts that make analogies in completely unrelated fields (e.g. cars and engines, feeding a cat, examining elephant turds for signs of extra-terrestrial intelligence, etc.) preferred!
BTW, the ticket price just went up!
Hmm... Looks like the world cup is more interesting.
On Sunday 04 Jul 2010, jtd wrote:
Hmm... Looks like the world cup is more interesting.
I agree. Kids today... don't even know how to have a proper flame-war. Hell, when we were young by this time we'd have had 3 broken kneecaps, 4 seven-generation vendettas, 15 unsubscriptions from the mailing list and at least 20 people not ever speaking to each other ever again!
-- Raju
On 07/04/2010 05:42 PM, Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) wrote:
On Sunday 04 Jul 2010, jtd wrote:
Hmm... Looks like the world cup is more interesting.
I agree. Kids today... don't even know how to have a proper flame-war.
So true :-) ...I think part of the problem is that the kids these days are just drinking the kool aid doled out by the FSF/GNU camp and think that's all that free software is about ...sheesh ! I mean, I love the GPL, but it's no fun if I don't get to defend it.
Hell, when we were young by this time we'd have had 3 broken kneecaps, 4 seven-generation vendettas, 15 unsubscriptions from the mailing list and at least 20 people not ever speaking to each other ever again!
ah, the good ol' days. I keep hoping that someday someone publishes the old linux-india threads ...I remember begin young and vocal in some of those.
cheers, - steve
On Friday 02 Jul 2010, Pratik Anand wrote:
regarding all the confusion related to licensing . I am going to include gnu/gpl v3 with the src code and mention it in every file. and the app is in public domain, free to use, redistribute,modify and improve.
This is excellent. However, as Anurag also pointed out, it must be either GPLv3+ or public domain -- it can't be both.
If you would like to contribute towards reducing the noise on this list, you might want to make a simple statement. Something like: "I release my software FOO available at http://BAR/BAZ under GNU GPL v3+" in a mail should do it.
Regards,
-- Raju
2010/7/2 Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) raju@linux-delhi.org
On Friday 02 Jul 2010, Pratik Anand wrote:
regarding all the confusion related to licensing . I am going to include gnu/gpl v3 with the src code and mention it in every file. and the app is in public domain, free to use, redistribute,modify and improve.
This is excellent. However, as Anurag also pointed out, it must be either GPLv3+ or public domain -- it can't be both.
If you would like to contribute towards reducing the noise on this list,
Noise !!! I do not think so. we were just discussing about the possibilities and corresponding laws. This discussion is more productive then end-less flame wars.
you might want to make a simple statement. Something like: "I release my software FOO available at http://BAR/BAZ under GNU GPL v3+" in a mail should do it.
I do not think this should go. I can tell such statement in my private mailing list too. Copyright notice and Copying/License files must present on source code. I do not think that giving permission to mailing list will work. Also, if somebody write name of license (Ex GNU GPLv3) as you wrote above, then he must write the location (software or physical Postal address) to get the license file.
On Friday 02 July 2010 23:02:03 narendra sisodiya wrote:
If you would like to contribute towards reducing the noise on this list,
Noise !!! I do not think so. we were just discussing about the possibilities and corresponding laws. This discussion is more productive then end-less flame wars.
there are some people who think *any* discussion by other people is noise and that they are the only people who produce pure signal.
On Friday 02 July 2010 14:35:59 Pratik Anand wrote:
regarding all the confusion related to licensing . I am going to include gnu/gpl v3 with the src code and mention it in every file. and the app is in public domain, free to use, redistribute,modify and improve.
please do not confuse 'public domain' with 'license'
Hi Pratik,
On 07/02/2010 02:35 PM, Pratik Anand wrote:
ok, regarding all the confusion related to licensing . I am going to include gnu/gpl v3 with the src code and mention it in every file. and the app is in public domain, free to use, redistribute,modify and improve.
As others have already noted, your software cannot be both GPLv3 and public domain. So, choose one.
Besides that however, there is one /major/ licensing issue you /have/ to address -- You are not following the terms of the license of twitteroauth library, which your app is based on !!
twitteroauth is released under an MIT license and its license file ...
http://github.com/abraham/twitteroauth/blob/master/LICENSE
...*clearly* states that you have freedom to "use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software ..." etc subject to the condition that...
""" The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. """
...but your repo does not do that: http://github.com/pratikone/ipratik-twitter/tree/master/ipratik/twitteroauth...
Please include the file. I understand that as a developer you would appreciate technical feedback more that license related talk, but if you wish to release your application in an open source manner, learn to do it in the right manner.
It is not that hard -- for GPL license (any version) all you have to do is include the chosen version of GPL in your source tree (usually the file is called LICENSE or COPYING) and add this paragraph in a comment at the top of every source file:
This file is part of ipratik-twitter.
ipratik-twitter is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
ipratik-twitter is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with ipratik-twitter. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/.
That's all ! Once that is done, people can download/use/test/modify/suggest improvements etc without any ambiguity as to whether they have the rights to do so.
cheers, - steve
On Friday 02 July 2010 13:45:45 Saswata Banerjee & Associates wrote:
On 02-Jul-2010, at 10:22 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Thursday 01 July 2010 18:45:28 Saswata Banerjee & Associates
wrote:
no - according to Indian law, one has to explicitly throw the work into public domain. At present he has the copyright to the application, and since he has not licensed it and given permission for people to download, use and modify it, anyone doing so is breaking the law.
Nopes, since he has put the details of it on a public mailing list that is searchable on google, etc, he has implicitly given permission to download and use it, not ofcourse to modify it. He still owns the copyright to the code.
the prosecution would argue that he has only asked people to preview/comment on the app and the permission to download was only for this limited purpose.
I think you stated that he has the copyright. That means he owns the code and you can not modify or copy / distribute it. It does not mean that you can not use the software (not just code) after he has allowed a download. It would amount to saying you can not read the book he has given to you as the copyright is his.
In any case, no court in India will accept the statement saying they were asked to preview and not to use. Specially not in the light of the contents of the mail he had sent and the fact that he sent it to ILUG
Afaik preview means that you have to destroy ALL copies you have either within the specified period or whenever the C owner demands. So although you can use as a whole, you cant use parts outside his application and you cant use it as a whole once he asks you to stop.
On Friday 02 July 2010 14:13:00 jtd wrote:
In any case, no court in India will accept the statement saying they were asked to preview and not to use. Specially not in the light of the contents of the mail he had sent and the fact that he sent it to ILUG
Afaik preview means that you have to destroy ALL copies you have either within the specified period or whenever the C owner demands. So although you can use as a whole, you cant use parts outside his application and you cant use it as a whole once he asks you to stop.
I took no risks - the moment I saw that there was no license I closed my browser tab and also removed the item from my history.
-
Anurag -
jtd -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
narendra sisodiya -
Pratik Anand -
Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) -
Sanjay Singhvi -
Saswata Banerjee & Associates -
Siddhesh Poyarekar -
steve -
Yohan Pereira