|
Not today I guess.
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
Oi! I used that one tomorrow.
Not fair: using your time machine to pre-post my Thoughts!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Great minds would've thought alike tomorrow.
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
For you, it appears, today was already yesterday. No need to guess.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
My daughter will be turning 11 next month. She just asked her mother for two '1' shaped candles to put on her cake.
I told my wife that I'd like to get a 'B' shaped candle; she was not impressed.
|
|
|
|
|
Ohhhh....
I thought she was base10 3. 
|
|
|
|
|
Well, then just put "1011" on the cake instead.
|
|
|
|
|
Better: four candles, but only light three of them.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I like it....
We need to adopt this for birthday announcements in the lounge.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe...next birthday, I will need 6 candles, 4 of them lit... we could make it "Candles Of The Day" or something.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
With 'Mastermind' rules... 3 black, 2 white.. until we figure the REAL age.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh no... Did I just start a meme?
There goes the planet...
|
|
|
|
|
It's been five minutes and I am still laughing at this one. 
You have just been Sharapova'd.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe she didn't like the alternate interpretation that your daughter was only in beta.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, at that age she isn't ready for Release To Market!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: she isn't ready for Release To Market!
I which I thought of that - but I'm rather glad you did, instead.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Suppose you are able to adapt a library from a freeware product to do your bidding, in this case, using 7-zip to build self-extracting archives for deploying and updating different resources used by an application. So, after a couple of days, I've got it working and piped into the deployment chain...then I notice the file properties tool-tip on the archives with some undesirable information...Author, Company, etc. While it's doubtful that my clients would ever spend the time to see this information or even think twice about what it said, it still seems to misrepresent the most basic information such as who created the file and what's in it.
The question is this: Is it OK to replace the Author, Company, and Icon resources in the freeware library so that you and your company are credited with the contents of the created archive?
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. 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
modified 30-Aug-16 9:59am.
|
|
|
|
|
No.
When you opted to use a freeware product, you opted to use the terms that came with it. Removing the author, company, etc. is essentially plagiarism.
|
|
|
|
|
What do the terms of use and the license say in the source library?
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to seem pro, use an installer.
|
|
|
|
|
An installer is overkill, plus the way the application is built, some customers would have dozens of our installers cluttering up their programs/menus. 
This has been one of our primary methods for module/utility deployments and/or updates for over a dozen years. The previous self-extracting archive builder was starting to show it's age and needed replacing. The new system now works better than the old system...less intermediate files, cleans up after itself perfectly, uses a custom icon, and best of all, doesn't puke on long filenames anymore!
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
kmoorevs wrote: An installer is overkill, plus the way the application is built, some customers would have dozens of our installers cluttering up their programs/menus.
If your installer is leaving a shortcut on the start menu, YOU are DOING IT WRONG and have been breaking the guidelines dating back to at least win2k ([^] who should have their keyboards broken). They should only leave an entry under add/remove programs.
PS that citation was picked not to single out a specific offender but because MS's love to randomly reorganize the URLs to all their online documentation and break existing links to the older versions meant I couldn't easily find the official documentation.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
My technical answer to your ethical question:
That information belongs to the executable (the extracting code) and the embedded archive is just payload. So it correctly tells what kind of file it is, who created it, and should not be changed therefore.
Is the self-extracting executable started manually by users or by one of your applications?
In the latter case there should be even no need to change the properties.
|
|
|
|
|
kmoorevs wrote: The question is this: Is it OK to replace the Author, Company, and Icon resources in the freeware library so that you and your company are credited with the contents of the created archive?
I'm pretty sure this is illegal, and of course unethical.
Since 7-Zip seems to be distributed under LGPL, you could either:
- Write the code that calls into 7-Zip code as a DLL or such, and release only that portion under LGPL and license the rest of your application commercially. If I am correct, the other code in your application CANNOT CALL this code directly, even as load as a library, but instead must 'run' it from the outside. This is less desirable in my opinion; just read the next option to know why (OR)
- Instead of using 7-Zip code, you could call it as an external executable (like, by using ShellExecute) or so. By doing so, you're not using 7-Zip code, but only their binaries. And so your entire code could be shipped with a commercial license. This is what we do with ffmpeg and matsim.
Note: As you may already know, any advice given in this forum may not be appropriate legal advice.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
