|
Hi Marco,
Since you can't create a "custom" job-title, perhaps you might consider selecting "Software Developer," or whatever your prefer, and then put a note in your Biography section that in Switzerland, and many European nations, there is a tradition to refer to a software-developer in training, as being an "Apprentice," in a formal status called "Apprenticeship."
Perhaps that would clarify your status for people of most countries ?
yrs, Bill
"What do humans depend on: words ! We're suspended in language: we can never say what's up: or, down. We must communicate experience and ideas, but in ways that do not become ambiguous, and lose objectivity.
For parallels to quantum theory: we must turn to psychology, or to paradoxes thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tzu illuminated, examining reality, as both observer, and actor, in human life's small-scale micro-cosmic drama."
Niels Bohr, 1937
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
The "Welcome to Codeproject" email contains a typo:
Worried about Phishing?
You should be. Always cut and paste web addresses sent to you via email to ensure you are visiting the correct site. The 'http://www.codeproject.. com' at the beginning of the link ensures you are going to CodeProject directly.
Note the extra period/full stop before .com.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Can you please forward me that email to chris at codeproject.com? Also, which email client are you using?
I've gone through the code and it's using the same code to generate the URL we use everywhere else, so I'm stumped as to how the "." got in there. However, I do remember seeing extra "."s appear in some email clients, and also we had an issue with an old SMTP library many, many moons ago that used to insert random dots. Since moving to .NET that's been a thing in the past, but you never know...
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed something today, I submit a solution and get 10 rep points later I modified my solution added few more comments and submit again I get another 10 points. in Total i got 20 Rep points for one solution. If you edit more the time you get more rep  . is that a bug?
Jibesh V P
|
|
|
|
|
The comment was posted on a Live Stream Spammer's question and I did not notice at first that the comment was not part of the spam.
If you can possibly undo that report, that would be great. Since the member is not a spammer, I will just refer to his member ID: 7982866.
Because the spam question is deleted now, I cannot see the comment, but hopefully an administrator is able to use this link:
http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/View.aspx?cmt=379551[^]
Sorry.
Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately that horse has already bolted.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Ok. I assume he lost some points due to that, so I will chase down a couple of his latest answers and vote on them to compensate.
Sorry to bother you Chris.
Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know if the over lords of this website read these forums, but if they do they should aware that The Code Project Open License is not consistent with any of the standard open source licenses. This means that many highly skilled Code Project users will never see their code being used in any noteworthy projects because virtually all of them use one of the standard licenses, while estimates very there is general agreement that GPL, Apache, BSD and MIT account for most projects. Have look at this graph:
Top 20 Most Commonly Used Licenses in Open Source Projects
You will find that the CPOL is at 1.33%.
And since the CPOL is not compatible with any of the others, that means that Code Project users are very unlikely to see their code being used.
Why is CPOL not considered a free software or open source license by either the Free Software Foundation or the Open Source Initiative, you ask?
Because it contains nonsensical restrictions on the use of software that make the license unusable for serious projects. The CPOL states in part:
You agree not to use the Work for illegal, immoral or improper purposes, or on pages containing illegal, immoral or improper material.
This means that if the author of a piece of code you are using at some point decides that your use of it is "improper" based on whatever criteria they feel like using, they have grounds to sue you for violating the license and then your lawyer and their lawyer can debate the propriety and morality of your project while you pay $300 an hour.
This license essentially amounts to
You can use it, until I decide you can't
No one with any familiarity with software licenses will touch CPOL licensed code with 100 ft. pole.
As programmers I am sure you are all familiar with the dangers of "rolling your own" - you wouldn't write your own XML parser from scratch because it has already been done by other people who probably know XML and text parsing better than you. The same applies to licenses people such as Richard Stallman and the people at the Open Source Initiative have devoted their careers to software licensing. Why in the name of all that is good would you slap together your own license when every imaginable flavor of licenses has already been written, rewritten and written countless times?
License proliferation is already a huge problem and CPOL is contributing to the problem.
I would humbly suggest that users of Code Project consider using a standard OSI compliant open source license. The GPL is good choice if you want only open source projects to use your stuff, and if you want everyone to use it you and want a patent license in there as well you can use the EPL. If neither of those satisfy you there are plenty more to choose from without having to invent your own incompatible non standard license:
http://opensource.org/
Happy New Year,
Ivan
|
|
|
|
|
thanks for that detailed breakdown Ivan, but it seems as though you think that the CPOL was drawn up on the back of a cigarette packet by one of the hamsters and wasn't, instead, drawn up with the full collaboration of the Code Project lawyers. There's a reason that people don't want to use GPL (or LGPL), and CPOL fits them perfectly - it goes nicely hand in hand with the central tenet of the site, for writing articles.
The real reason the take up of CPOL isn't huge is because it's a relatively new license, and it is aimed at this site, not at the OS community at large. And you also miss out on the fact that the phrasing of a license is based on what stands up in law - so using the word "improper" means that the author can't just decide on a whim to change what they want their project used for; the change has to be legally justifiable.
I'm sorry to say, but I found your whole diatribe to be an insult to the professionalism of the Code Project team. They have put a system in place where the user can choose to use ANY of the available licenses (we aren't forced to use CPOL), but most people here seem to find CPOL to be the least restrictive license that is compatible with their aim of sharing knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your comments, but I would humbly suggest that the GPL is not a good choice. You state that developers won't touch CPOL code with a 100' pole. I would say exactly the same about GPL code. While CPOL includes wording that restricts certain actions, the GPL includes wording that compels certain actions, and we would argue that CPOL code is far more suited to commercial development than GPL code, specifically because you can take CPOL code, make your changes and create innovation specific to your business with the choice being yours as to whether you open up your IP to others or whether you keep it in house.
Yes, this goes against the nature of "everyone should be able to see everything" but that's the nature of commercial software. What we do, instead, is say "CPOL code has been given out for free (gratis) and it should stay that way". We do not subscribe to the notion that someone else has the right to sell your work without your permission. I know this goes directly against the business model of some Open Source vendors.
The CPOL is also geared towards protecting the author. We take our author's rights and protections extremely seriously which is why we engaged a law firm that specialises in software licensing to draft up the CPOL. In drafting the license we looked at all the licenses out there and none of them (at that point) had the protections in place for authors, or had ambiguities or holes (Patent license, indemnification for both author and publisher, no jurisdiction specified etc). This license wasn't slapped together.
The specific instance you raised about immoral use stems from court cases where software developers have successfully sued when the product of their work is used in immoral ways. Two separate lawyers raised this issue, but we have had, for a couple of years, internal debate as to whether we drop that clause, and instead pursue a "moral rights release" from authors. This would probably be easier on everyone (except us! The paperwork!)
And, as always, we offer our members a choice as to what license they use. And that's how it should be.
[Edit: Next week's Poll will be on this topic. It would be great to continue this conversation there]
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
modified 11-Jan-13 13:10pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Pete and Chris,
Thanks for you your replies. Let me address them point by point:
> And you also miss out on the fact that the phrasing of a license is based on what stands up in law - so using the word "improper" means that the author can't just decide on a whim to change what they want their project used for.
The problem with the use of the word improper is that it doesn’t communicate very well the developer’s intent – the page for the CPOL license begins by saying that it is intended to be “a clear statement regarding how the code can be used”. But unless I know you very well, I won’t know what you consider to be “improper” and this dispute may or may not end up in court but will probably be highly unpleasant for both of us.
Compare that with the commonly used licenses such as GPL, as Chris points out in his reply many people do not like to use the GPL and that’s fine, but they understand what it requires, because it clearly explains those requirements.
> They have put a system in place where the user can choose to use ANY of the available licenses (we aren't forced to use CPOL)
It’s true that no one is forced to use it, but people who don’t feel very knowledgeable about licensing will choose the default or recommended option, and I think that might explain some of the popularity of CPOL among Code Project users.
> Thanks for your comments, but I would humbly suggest that the GPL is not a good choice.
There is no question that the GPL is not a good choice for every product, but there are many OSI approved licenses that are both widely used and provide the flexibility that the GPL doesn’t.
I am not saying that everyone on Code Project should use the GPL or that the GPL is the best license – I am simply saying that it is probably a good idea for users to use one of the many OSI approved licenses that have been thoroughly reviewed, are widely recognized and understood with respect to their requirements and compatibility with other licenses.
> You state that developers won't touch CPOL code with a 100' pole. I would say exactly the same about GPL code.
Many commercial developers won’t use the GPL, that’s a fact, but there are many “business friendly” licenses that are OSI approved and well known, for example Apache and EPL which both include patent licenses.
> In drafting the license we looked at all the licenses out there and none of them (at that point) had the protections in place for authors, or had ambiguities or holes (Patent license, indemnification for both author and publisher, no jurisdiction specified etc). This license wasn't slapped together.
I appreciate that a great deal of work went into the license I am sure you had good reasons for putting it together, but the issue of non-compatibility still remains – Google Code, Sourceforge and other open source project hosts typically only allow projects with OSI approved licenses. This means that, because CPOL is not OSI approved and is not compatible with OSI approved licenses, these projects won’t be able to use any Code Project code, a fact the users of Code Project, frankly probably do not realize, since nothing of the sort is mentioned anywhere on the licenses page (http://www.codeproject.com/info/Licenses.aspx)
If you don’t mind me asking, has Code Project considered finding an OSI approved license that most closely matches what you would like to accomplish and asking the authors of that license to modify it, for example by adding a patent license or explicitly stating that the author retains moral rights or some other provision. That way you would be helping reduce license proliferation and benefiting the people who already use the license that you try to have modified, assuming of course that you can convince the authors to make modifications.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 9733820 wrote: If you don’t mind me asking, has Code Project considered finding an OSI approved license that most closely matches what you would like to accomplish and asking the authors of that license to modify it
Our feeling was that many licenses (eg Apache, MIT) were so loose that only a full rewrite would help. They are, however, popular because they are so simple. A double-edged sword. For licenses such as the GPL, we didn't bother even going there, and for something like the MS licenses, those licenses are probably the closest, but they are geared purely towards code, and we wanted something that covered associated documentation and that included the publisher as well. The CPOL isn't just for CodeProject - it's for any website that hosts code, and protection of those disseminating code is something clearly lacking in licenses.
However, I totally understand the license proliferation issue and we struggled with this for a long time. We really, truly did not want to spend the exorbitant amount that we did on lawyers, but we truly felt we were left with no option.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps, the author can be forced to pick a license? Right now it defaults to CPOL.
I've often had people contact me and ask me if I could change the license from one of my articles to a different license. I usually just reply back granting them rights to use the code under the license of their choice. For most people that sufficed as the email's date overrides the original license for their specific use.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 9733820 wrote: when every imaginable flavor of licenses has already been written
Because they suck.
Member 9733820 wrote: This means that if the author of a piece of code you are using at some point
decides that your use of it is "improper" ...
That is an incorrect interpretation. It has nothing to do with what the author finds improper and everything to do with what the authorities find improper -- it protects the author from the authorities.
modified 15-Jan-13 23:57pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I totally agree that the CPOL is a first-class, well thought-out, license that fits CodeProject like "glove on hand." And, since CP posters have other optional licenses: what's the issue here.
There is one word in the COPL license, however, I do think has a "dangerous" ambiguity: that word is "improper." I would like to see that replaced with either a word, or a "clause," that makes it explicit to whom "improper" applies to, under what circumstances.
"Immoral" is another word that can have infinite intepretations: "immoral," to whom: to the Amish; to the Muslim Brotherhood; to the students at Jerry Falwell's Christian University; to PETA ?
Anyway, all this palaver is probably just a "tempest in a teapot," (at the Mad Hatter's tea-party ?); and, CodeProject remains "The Golden Goose," for me 
yrs, Bill
"What do humans depend on: words ! We're suspended in language: we can never say what's up: or, down. We must communicate experience and ideas, but in ways that do not become ambiguous, and lose objectivity.
For parallels to quantum theory: we must turn to psychology, or to paradoxes thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tzu illuminated, examining reality, as both observer, and actor, in human life's small-scale micro-cosmic drama."
Niels Bohr, 1937
|
|
|
|
|
Bill, as always, a well thought out argument. However, it's important to realise that the use of improper and immoral are not personal interpretation issues. They are used here as legal terms, and are intended as protection for both Code Project and the authors. What they are really saying is that if the derived work you do, with my code, can be deemed to fall foul of things such as local morality laws (for instance), then only you are responsible. In other words, it protects authors from being pursued over works that they had no real part in developing.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for that clarification, Pete; I was not aware of the "stricter" legal construal of those terms.
yrs, Bill
"What do humans depend on: words ! We're suspended in language: we can never say what's up: or, down. We must communicate experience and ideas, but in ways that do not become ambiguous, and lose objectivity.
For parallels to quantum theory: we must turn to psychology, or to paradoxes thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tzu illuminated, examining reality, as both observer, and actor, in human life's small-scale micro-cosmic drama."
Niels Bohr, 1937
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, ok, so this is going to seem a bit anal retentive...so bite me! 
Why are the styles for QA and the rest of the site different?
If you have the QA list in one browser tab, and the home page, or lounge in another, then flick between them, the QA menu and it's dividing line are a couple of pixels higher.
Worse, (and why I noticed in the first place) the font used in QA is bigger than that for the others - even if I make sure they are both at the same zoom factor by pressing CTRL-0 on them both.
Seems odd, that's all.
Chrome 23.0.1271.97
Interestingly, the two menus are aligned in IE9...fonts are still different though.
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
|
|
|
|
|
Now it's been brought to my attention it is really bugging me. 
One of these days I'm going to think of a really clever signature.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry about that!
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
|
|
|
|
|
Still a problem now? (I've been playing)
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
The positioning is now fine! Ahhhhh.... 
I assume the QA font is larger for a reason? (Though I can't imagine what that might be. )
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent, I can sleep easy now. 
One of these days I'm going to think of a really clever signature.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Removed
modified 10-Jan-13 14:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
