Customer service in the MQL - page 8
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
https://www.mql5.com/ru/market/product/10082 Wasn't there a copyright in this free code? See attachment.
---
I don't understand why MQ would get dirty selling free code with someone else's copyright
is it you want to show that i stole the code?
I want to show that you on the MetaQuotes website are 'baiting suckers'.
https://www.mql5.com/ru/market/product/10166 is here in the kodobase for freehttps://www.mql5.com/ru/code/8020 with copyright by the author
It is unclear why MQ gets banned for decompiling and not for this - is the damage to the image less?
I don't see why MQ should get dirty selling free code with someone else's copyright
For example, a freelance developer puts his copyright in the code.
The client sells the software because he has proprietary rights to that software -- the copyright doesn't match.
When the client substitutes the copyright of the developer with his own, that's an infringement of the developer's copyright.
So the copyright mismatch is not a good reason to think the software is stolen.
The author of the thread was still actively fiddling with the ratings, bumping into the limits. Logs are littered with attempts and blockages.
Why? The person is "free to do what they want", "it's not written anywhere that you can't do that" and "show me where you're banning me"! The final "your service is poor" and "why won't they work with me?
When customer replaces the developer's copyright with his own, it's a violation of developer's copyright.
There is a clause in the contract - if not specifically stated in the TOR, the rights to the product belong to the customer, and the developer has the right of personal use and no more. I.e., the developer cannot make it available to the public, so the appearance of this product in the public with the personal copyright of the coder is a violation of the contract.
But here we are talking about something else - if MetaQuotes code is enough to make a conclusion 'decompile' and banned, what is not enough to ban the sale of free codes with left copyright?
The contract has a clause - if not specifically stated in the ToR, the rights to the product belong to the customer, while the developer has the right of personal use and no more. In other words, the developer cannot make it available to the public, so the appearance of this product in public with the coder's personal copyright is a violation of the contract
The highlighted is nonsense.
You might want to look into copyright and related rights.
In short -- there are proprietary and non-proprietary copyrights.
The developer has at least a non-proprietary copyright when ordering -- which is not alienated, i.e., not sold, not given away, not inherited -- i.e., no contract can take away the developer's right to his copyright.
Whether the developer has proprietary copyright is a subject of the contract between the client and the developer.
When they say "all rights", they mean the "proprietary copyright".
The highlighted is nonsense.
This is what the contractor signs up to when accepting the order:
Unless the conditions for transferring the exclusive rights to the program created on order via Freelance service are separately agreed in the requirements specification, the exclusive rights to this program created on order belong to the Customer. In this case, the Developer can use the created program for its own purposes under a royalty-free, simple (non-exclusive) license for the duration of the exclusive rights. https://www.mql5.com/ru/job/rules
With his 'non-exclusive license' the contractor has no right to make the product available to the public - that's not 'own needs'. With a 'non-exclusive' license the use not expressly mentioned in the 'license agreement' is not considered as granted. See the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the 1st paragraphhttp://www.gk-rf.ru/statia1235.
I'll say no more on this subject - it's already in the woods...
That is what the contractor signed up for when he accepted the order:
It was originally about copyright, not software rights.
"Exclusive rights" do not deprive the developer of the right to put his copyright -- nor do they give the client the right to remove the developer's copyright.
Putting the developer's copyright does not give the developer "exclusive rights" and does not infringe the client's rights.
What the client does with the software is up to him - the only thing he has no right to do is remove the developer's copyright, the "exclusive rights" don't apply to that.
I add free codes to code base
Free does not mean ownerless, every code has an author, and when you publish someone else's code without asking, you take away not only pennies of ranking but also your reputation ...