How can I tell if I have decompiled or not? - page 16
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
They are clear, but you are interpreting them wrong.
When decompiling, you can rip out the copyright, but you can't rip out the comments.
Hence the moral, comments are not a notice of copyright and other proprietary rights (even if you draw duly there).
What has decompilation got to do with it? Kim put his copyright in his codes and put it in the open source code.
Vladon erased Kim's copyright and put his authorship -- it is clearly and unequivocally proved and documented in the code base.
How can the Terms of Use be misinterpreted here?
If I post my indicator in Kodabase and put my authorship in the comments in the header -- then you think it is acceptable to erase my authorship and put your own, but in the copyright?
And while smiling impudently you tell me, the author, that I have put my copyright somewhere in a wrong place?
And you'll add that removing my copyright and putting yours, you've done more than 10% of changes in my code.
What does decompiling have to do with it? Kim put his copyright on his code and made it freely available in source code.
Vladon erased Kim's copyright and put his authorship in the codebase.
How can the Terms of Use be misinterpreted here?
If I post my indicator in Kodabase and put my authorship in the comments in the header -- then you think it is acceptable to erase my authorship and put your own, but in the copyright?
And while smiling impudently you tell me, the author, that I put my copyright somewhere in a wrong place?
Not about that. You don't have any copyright, you just didn't put it there. But when you put it in copyright that's the subject of the dispute (legally I changed it or not).
That's not what you're talking about. You don't have any copyright, you just didn't put it there. It's when you put it in copyright that there's the subject (whether or not I've changed it legally).
You're really something.
Look, I have an article for review, it uses an Integer biblio of 10,000 lines, I changed a couple of functions there and some wiggling, and that's it.
I left the Integer copyright in the biblio, but in the comments I added what I'd done and where I'd done what I'd done.
Does that give me the right to re-copyright it?
if you use this code, you'll be obliged to mention everywhere except yourself, that there are two other authors?
We'll get to the point where we have to put Cyril and Methodius in the copyright.
You don't have any copyright, you just haven't put it there.
You should read any country's "Copyright and Funny Rights Act" for starters -- and don't act like a leader of demagogues and dilettantes
I once tried to find out how to get a patent on a software product, or otherwise protect my work from hacking, on the old mcl4...
There are a lot of prerequisites, starting with a description of the code, a description of the results obtained, the main blocks of code with source code. All this needs to be provided and written, so that when plagiarism occurs, it can be proved that the idea was stolen.
And still there is a high probability that the left-hand code with the same result can be considered unique.
That's not what you're talking about. You don't have any copyright, you just didn't put it there. It's when you put it in copyright that there's the subject (whether or not I've changed it legally).
Kolya, can you explain why you decided to "bury" this topic?
he must be an associate of Vladon's.
Kolya, can you explain why you decided to "bury" this topic?
Artyom, I'm not balking. I was pointing out a clear miscalculation in your reasoning. Something you'll end up paying for in a real trial.
Forewarned is forearmed.
Keep ranting about nothing, I won't get in the way.