[Closed] The coding and a code of ethic…

There are many commercial scripts, that are easy to do…
I’m considering the idea start picking some and create new own versions, free…

I too think there is a change he never thought he was doing something bad,
depends on how much relevance has denisT code on that tool.

I would be annoyed as well… but would it have been any less offensive if he had changed the variable names and a few other irrelevant things? At what point would it have stopped being “your code”?

A couple thoughts:

“However, unencrypting/cracking a piece of code and publishing the source may actually be a crime in the US.”
If you post it anonymously, whos going to jail?

“At what point would it have stopped being “your code”?
When the code changes. More than variable names, the actual functionality of the code.

“If somebody grabs some piece of code from any of my tools and sells it, I just ignore them. They will forever be lame. “
Unless they make a lot of money off of the tool, or get a lucrative contract because of it. I shared a script with someone that converts point cloud data into 3d polygons. They used this code in a piece of software that images seafloors. They sold their services to oil companies and made a lot of money searching for oil wells. I received nothing. That’s what happens when you ignore them.

“It is kind of like, if you don’t want to have your tools cracked and on a warz site don’t release them.”
It’s not this simple. Replace ‘tools’ with ‘dvds’. I, for one, would be much further behind if I hadn’t purchased and watched your rigging DVDs. Same with Bobo’s DVDs.

My personal stance on this is simple: denisT is right. If you steal someone else’s code and then sell it, you should have your tool decrypted and released for free. The free version should have better advertising and more functionality. And the author of the commercial script should be educated as to why they shouldn’t steal code and sell it. Even if they were unaware of the code being stolen. They copied it from somewhere.

But let me raise another concern: what about the opposite side of the fence? Let’s say I come across some sweet commercial script and decide that I want to write my own version of it. Is that stealing? Not even downloading the script, not even looking at the code, but writing it from scratch. For me, that’s the grey area. How upset would tyson be if someone wrote buildingGenerator and released it for free? or kilad’s ghostTown? or a free version of Gould’s Illustrate? If the code if fundamentally different, is there a problem? At what point do we succumb to being patent trolls?

i don’t like an idea to replicate anyone’s commercial tool and post it for free. i fully respect the people who could make any money selling max scripts. believe me it’s very hard to do.

the story that i told is different. there are several things those made everything bad.

– posting my samples, functions (never tools and rarely final solutions) for free, i kinda proud myself when people use it or find it helpful. but i want to see how they use it, or to know why it doesn’t work for them
– i fully understand that any my idea or code might be used in commercial purpose. that’s OK.
– i know that i might not get a credit for my code. (the code might be considerably changed, original source forgotten… there are reasons).

but the person who took my code knew for sure were he got it, who made it… he didn’t change a line. he put my code inside yours amateur code not trying to understand how it works. and after that he tried to sell it, to get exclusive benefits and credits.

i made some research and found that i was wrong when i said that when you publish any code on free resources you automatically loose a copyright.
that’s not true. i can say that a code for free, free to use and share… but it doesn’t mean that in the other situation, later i will not ask for my copyright or credit. only code licensed by GNU/GPL can partly guaranty its free use.

the result of my other research and some consultations…

the max script decrypting is not illegal. a max script can’t function in encrypted form, an it must be decrypted before use. 3DS max does do it. does it do it illegally? of course not. if anyone uses official built-in max functions to encrypt and decrypt scripts what does he do wrong?
how an author of an encrypted script can feel yourself the owner if he can’t decrypt the script because he doesn’t know a key. but this question not to person who knows the key, it’s a question to Autodesk that designed this security system.

The cracking of a script (open or encrypted) is technically illegal. by cracking i mean making some changes in code to give unlimited access for example, not allowed by the author of the tool.
Publishing, distributing, or selling anyone else’s code without the author’s permission is illegal. it’s against the copyright law.
If a code doesn’t have any copyright it’s free to share and use. To mark anything with unwarranted copyright is illegal.

   @PEN
  Should someone give up on the idea of releasing a free tool, so others can make money?
   Of course, making money is not bad. is good to get support.
   When I sale something I've created, I see it as "buying me time", for my life, for future development,etc
   
   But anyone has to acknowledge that this is business, and has no relation to what someone deserves.
   Business is never about fair price, or support to the author. Otherwise big companies would lower the price ridiculously, but they don't, they  sale based on a balance analyzed from the market and their customers.(does your tool has a market? how big? for how long?)
   
   There are many cases where price, makes no sense to me.
   For example: Consider selling a tool for 100$, because its a "balanced price" to release a 'professional tool', not something made in one afternoon, but someone releases a quick similar tool, with many bugs, poor implementation etc, but still useful and with updates, for 25$ ?
   In this case there are 3 obvious options:
  - Free
  - Try to compete with an even lower price and/or publicity/marketing
  - Keep it 'private'.

Free sounds more attractive, as it would release me from extra obligatory work(bugs,etc), I still get ideas/comments, etc
Competing for low prices, IMO is bad. deteriorates the market even worst. selling stuff overpriced is bad too.
And keeping it private, well, the default.

   Also the meaning of something under the context "commercial", matters:
   For me if a tool has a price(any price)," it should justify that price" one way or another(not just support). If any person can do the same tool, then it's time to question oneself if the tool is really offering some exclusivity, and hence deserve a price, specially a big price.
   
   The biggest problem comes from this cg industry,
   @PEN, your true rival is you, and your good  will of sharing knowledge:
   Newcomers [b]must [/b]struggle. Things must be very difficult for them. Otherwise they just copy/paste, that's the biggest problem, that affects you, me, everybody.
   
   We give value to things that requires [b]our own[/b] [b]effort[/b].
   But [b]now[/b], people has lots of resources, free and easy.
   The consequences of this is that the level has been raised a lot. this means that if you want to have a market, you have to create something far more advanced than anyone can do. or accept that anybody can release a free tool anytime.

but no way I’m going to agree about not releasing free tools, to favor commercial tools.

Another way to look at it, is if you sell something that can easily be replicated, it does not have a great market value. I don’t think you can copyright a rigging technique. :shrug:

PEN makes good points.

This is something that pisses me off a bit, some one is trying to make a living from their work and some one else comes along and releases a similar tool for nothing. Why?

I can see 3 reasons:

1. they want to replace your tool with theirs, and steal your clients/users
2. they didn’t know your tool existed, but have a need for the tool
3. they wanted to learn how to write a tool of that complexity, and thus needed examples to work from
   For example, I wrote stretchy bones creator because I wanted to learn how to write a complex tool that provided real benefit. It was all based on a tutorial by tyson that showed how to rig faces with bones. After working on it for a month, I learned about bonyFace, another script that did similar things, and some not so similar things. But it was close enough to make me ask myself “Should I continue developing this tool? Am I taking away an individual’s income stream by releasing this for free? Am I taking food off their table?”. But at the end of the day, I’m just writing a tool for me to use. I gave it away because I thought it might help other people, and because I thought it might motivate others to provide help. Now, I realize that I haven’t provided a tool to the industry, but as an example, I think it has context.

That all being said I don’t like the idea of someone taking some one elses code and selling it. That is just wrong. But if you sell a character rig TheGrak that uses a method that I have described here on this forum should I get paid for it because you have used it? How does code differ? Can I down load it and then give it away on my site because the IK/FK blend is how I showed it?

This is a very good point. You can’t control how shared information is used.
If I were to sell a rig that uses innovations by PEN, I would expect to pay some kind of fee. That’s not unreasonable. If I developed something that was identical to PENs, but without knowledge of PEN’s innovations, then I see no problem in selling it and keeping the profits. Should I have to pay a fee?