Digg this topic Add to my del.icio.us Submit to SlashDot 10 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
> Please ALL .script developers read here, Embedding files in .scripts
Rating 5 V
jaclaz
post Sep 22 2007, 06:07 PM
Post #1


Finder
***

Group: Advanced user
Posts: 1,129
Joined: 14-July 06
Member No.: 2


Italy


It has come to my attention that some .script developers have embedded in their .scripts non-redistributable files.

As you might know I have always been contrary to this feature of Winbuilder as I foresaw the possibility that someone could use it in the "wrong" way.

And in most cases, even when files are in the Public Domain, Freeware or however re-distributable, the Author is deprived of the small satisfaction of being cited in such a way that the "final" user of the .script may be able to perceive.

So, I had a talk with Nuno, which proposed to put any uploaded .script "on hold" until approved by him or by a selected "board of testers".

I expressed my concern that this procedure may:
1) put an additional load of work or pressure on Nuno or to the "testers"
2) could cause a delay to the actual release of a new .script
3) could be seen by the "good" .script developers, which I believe to be the vast majority, as a form of censorship or unneeded centralized control over their work

So, what I propose is an amendment to Rules as follows:
QUOTE
Amendment #2 to Rules Month Day, 2007 - adding of point 1.a
ADDITIONAL provisions for "warez" in .scripts
It has recently come to the attention of the Admins of the board that some .script developers embedded in their .scripts files which re-distribution is not allowed under the terms of their respective License, files found to infringe the Authors License were removed.
Effective from xx/xx/2007 :
1.a ANY .script uploaded to the Downloads section and/or announced on the board and/or attached to a post must be accompanied (in the download description or in the post) with the following information:
- List of ALL files embedded in the .script
- Reference, for each file or group of files coming from the same package, to the Source where it can be found on the Internet (if any), to the Author and to the License accompanying
the file(s), even if the Author of the .script is also the Author or Copyright Owner of the embedded file(s)
- If the .script has no files embedded, a simple statement like "This .script contains no embedded files of any kind."
1.b ANY .script uploaded to the Downloads section and/or announced on the board and/or attached to a post missing ANY of the above information will be deleted.
1.c Users found to "hide" Copyrighted or however non-redistributable files inside their .scripts will be eventually banned from the board


Nuno approved this latter idea and (reproduced from a PM by permission):
QUOTE(Nuno Brito)
Hmm.. However the only obstacle I see is the additional work load in effectively listing all files when writing the script public post - this act itself can take a while longer that writing the script itself and a standard method should be made available so that the script presentation can have a polished and organized look.

I can add a new tool inside wb to take of this part - a small tool to create a list of all files inside a script, also adding a few customizable fields like the sort of license in wich the app is included, app author, website, etc.

This way any .script developer would only need to open up their script inside wb, and inside the edit script tools would appear a small tab saying "Publish" where all these details were automatically published.

Wouldn't be available for non .script files but at least it would set a standard for the scripts with embedded files.

......

I would like that this could be discussed and implemented over the next wb beta - which is likely the ideal time to add this new feature and polish the rough edges.


Ideas, opinions and suggestions are welcome, as well as the cooperation from everyone to single out and correct or remove .scripts already posted that may be against this amendment to Rules.

jaclaz
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MedEvil
post Sep 23 2007, 01:08 AM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: .script developer
Posts: 1,270
Joined: 29-December 06
Member No.: 2,192



I think this is overkill!
Cause:
1. Almost no developer will give you a list of contained files in their apps, so why should we list their files?
2. Every program i know of, contains information about its developer and homepage.
So no need to explicitly write this down again.
3. If someone is too dumb to find those informations in a program, who are we to force him to know? (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

If you wanna do something, keep it simple.
Include the url of the homepage in the script and also in the post, nothing more.

(IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psc
post Sep 23 2007, 07:47 AM
Post #3


Guru
***

Group: .script developer
Posts: 3,042
Joined: 14-July 06
From: Korschenbroich, Germany
Member No.: 3


Germany


QUOTE(MedEvil @ Sep 23 2007, 03:08 AM) *
I think this is overkill!
Cause:
1. Almost no developer will give you a list of contained files in their apps, so why should we list their files?
2. Every program i know of, contains information about its developer and homepage.
So no need to explicitly write this down again.
3. If someone is too dumb to find those informations in a program, who are we to force him to know? (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

If you wanna do something, keep it simple.
Include the url of the homepage in the script and also in the post, nothing more.

(IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

To show that this is not a lonely idea by jaclaz:

I agree to the basics of his post:
Here very often license rights are violated.
And (if allowed) when somebody passes a third party file in a script, he/she must respect the license rules and add some files like EULA etc.

Peter
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jaclaz
post Sep 23 2007, 10:58 AM
Post #4


Finder
***

Group: Advanced user
Posts: 1,129
Joined: 14-July 06
Member No.: 2


Italy


QUOTE(MedEvil @ Sep 23 2007, 03:08 AM) *
1. Almost no developer will give you a list of contained files in their apps, so why should we list their files?

A developer embedding the program in a .script actually re-packages and re-distributes third party files, and does this through boot-land, that must somehow check that this activity and the resulting .script is Legal and, as much as possible, safe for the final user.

This can be done from the "base", i.e. with developers that add this info, or from the "vertex", i.e. by the Owner of the board.

Would it be better to add a very small amount of work to that of each developer or increase enormously the amount of work of the Owner?

Let me think....(IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/dubbio.gif)


QUOTE(MedEvil @ Sep 23 2007, 03:08 AM) *
2. Every program i know of, contains information about its developer and homepage.
So no need to explicitly write this down again.

Yes, but often the .script is made so that the application is installed, copied or used "silently", bypassing License Agreements and/or preventing the user to read the License.
And, by the way, this actually is the same as your idea:
QUOTE(MedEvil)
If you wanna do something, keep it simple.
Include the url of the homepage in the script and also in the post, nothing more.

Unfortunately, a number of programs do not have a homepage, or do not have one in which the License is viewable, as the latter is inside the download.
By embedding the app in the .script and "easying" it's install or copying prevents, in most cases, the user from actually seeing the contents of the original download, including it's license.


QUOTE(MedEvil @ Sep 23 2007, 03:08 AM) *
3. If someone is too dumb to find those informations in a program, who are we to force him to know? (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

First thing, I consider calling a possible user of Winbuilder "dumb" to be unneededly unpolite. (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)

Maybe a user can be inexperienced, and thus needing guidance, but remember that the scope of Winbuilder is to ease some tasks (that, generally speaking, an experienced user is already able to perform) for the benefit of all users and expecially of the less experienced ones.
Following this idea of helping people, I find it a duty of boot-land, and of its more prominent members, the .script developers, to do whatever in their power to make things as simple as possible for unexperienced users and as documented as possible for everyone.
This includes making people aware of the License under which the app they are going to use is released, besides the name and homesite of the Author, where they might be able to find more informations on the use of the program, get to know about bugs and new releases, etc..

Of course there are a number of alternatives, here are a few:
1) Nuno and the "board of testers" manually reviewing, adding the needed info and approving every single .script file before allowing it's download
2) Close the Download area and lock the downloading of attachments to posts, limiting the access to them to a number of "approved" (which you may call "non-dumb" (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ) members
3) Prevent members to upload .scripts to the server
4) Leave everything as is, and let the board slowly become a "warez" one

Reasons against #1 have been already pointed out, in my opinion #2 and #3 would effectively prevent a number of people from using Winbuilder, vanifying the idea at the base of it, #4 is against the very spirit of the board and of most of it's members.

(IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

jaclaz
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alexei
post Sep 23 2007, 11:28 AM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: .script developer
Posts: 532
Joined: 30-August 06
Member No.: 283



As you may remember I raised this issue a long time ago (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
I also demonstrated how to use free tools (WGET and MSI2XML) to automate upload and file extraction.
Now I want to say: using embedded files is not a good idea because it creates problem with potential copyright violations.
What jacklaz proposed is a training, i.e. organizational solution.
I hope, any IT professional would agree: organizational solutions should be avoided and replaced with automation.

That's why I propose following:
1. Redistributable files should be hosted at Boot-Land Download and automatically downloaded along with corresponding scripts.
2. It would be reasonable to allow inclusion of text files (such as CMD scripts) into WB scripts as a plain text.
3. It should be additional set of scripts to download and extract non-redistributable 3rd party files at client site.
4. It's better to have converter that would extract embedded files from all scripts and place them to Download, unless it's a short text file that would be automatically embedded into the script as a plain text.

Of course, some people would say that embedded files are OK, because we set rules how to use them, but rules require some entity to inforce them, which we don't have. Even if we had it, how to deal with disputes, differences in local law, arbitration, etc.?
It's easy to say something's prohibited and will be punished, but who's willing to screen embedded files, locate their sources, locate corresponding licenses, interpret them, make decisions, execute punishment, accept appeals, etc.? In addition, questionable situations would lead to lengthy discussions and stress the community.

Everything that can be autometed should be autometed, the rest should be autometed too (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

(IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)
Alexei

PS
My posst was crossed with the one by jaclaz.
So, I'd like to add that "scripts to download and extract non-redistributable 3rd party files" may include presenting of EULA to the end-user and require user's acceptance. Such download scripts may call common script with parameters:
local path, source URL, files to extract, extraction method, EULA file name.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MedEvil
post Sep 23 2007, 12:36 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: .script developer
Posts: 1,270
Joined: 29-December 06
Member No.: 2,192



Would everyone please stop appologizing, before someone even feels offended!

QUOTE(jaclaz)
4) Leave everything as is, and let the board slowly become a "warez" one

I really don't see how this should happen, since we don't allow commercial software as far as i know.

QUOTE(Alexei @ Sep 23 2007, 01:28 PM) *
Now I want to say: using embedded files is not a good idea because it creates problem with potential copyright violations.

How?
Freeware and shareware can be passed on from user to user. That's what they are even invented for, if i remember right. (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
And the only rule the developer insist on, is that all his files have to be passed on.
No problem here eighter.

And the sometime ago, put forward idea of not embedding software in a script, but instead letting the script download the program from the original developers site.
Changes absolutely nothing in regard to this discussion. Since the software would still be installed silently.
But we could look forward to many, many script stop working when the program that it downloads is updated, changed or the url is changed, goes offline.

(IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

PS: Would someone please explain to me how naming all files in, for instance Firefox, would stop copyright related problems?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nuno Brito
post Sep 23 2007, 01:17 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: .script developer
Posts: 4,203
Joined: 13-July 06
From: Azores
Member No.: 1


Portugal


It's also possible to include licenses inside the scripts and the end user has a word to say wether to accept a license agreement or not for copyrighted software with restrictive licensing.

This feature has been inside wb for a long while but very rarely needed, I'm posting an example screenshot of this command displaying the EULA.TXT file from a Portuguese XP

Attached Image


.script developers only need to add something like:
CODE
If,NotLicense,E:\Sources\XP_SP2_PRO_PT\I386\EULA.txt,Exit,"License was not acepted"


I think wb itself can help by having a tool that served as a template for posting scripts online - mentioning authors, version, website, screenshot (if any), etc.. things that would give users more informations about what they are downloading and generate them in automated fashion.


(IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alexei
post Sep 23 2007, 01:18 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: .script developer
Posts: 532
Joined: 30-August 06
Member No.: 283



QUOTE(MedEvil @ Sep 23 2007, 05:36 AM) *
Freeware and shareware can be passed on from user to user. That's what they are even invented for, if i remember right. (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Unfortunately, a lot of freeware and shareware is not allowed to be re-distributed, i.e. hosted on 3rd party sites.

QUOTE(MedEvil @ Sep 23 2007, 05:36 AM) *
And the sometime ago, put forward idea of not embedding software in a script, but instead letting the script download the program from the original developers site.
Changes absolutely nothing in regard to this discussion. Since the software would still be installed silently.
But we could look forward to many, many script stop working when the program that it downloads is updated, changed or the url is changed, goes offline.

- The script that makes download can show the license and ask for its acceptance.
- Even if download script downloads the license, but doesn't show it, it can hardly be considered copyright violation, especially if there is general note requiring end-user to accept related EULAs. A lot of software is distributed in zips that just contain text file with a license.
Once again, it better be separate downloading scripts that do what's required.
Regarding scripts may stop working: that's the cost of using non-redistributable software (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)
(IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)
Alexei
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alexei
post Sep 23 2007, 01:24 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: .script developer
Posts: 532
Joined: 30-August 06
Member No.: 283



QUOTE(Nuno Brito @ Sep 23 2007, 06:17 AM) *
I think wb itself can help by having a tool that served as a template for posting scripts online - mentioning authors, version, website, screenshot (if any), etc.. things that would give users more informations about what they are downloading and generate them in automated fashion.
(IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

(IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MedEvil
post Sep 23 2007, 01:48 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: .script developer
Posts: 1,270
Joined: 29-December 06
Member No.: 2,192



Just to make sure we're all on the same level.
You guys know that we're doing here things with XP, that do not comply with the intended use of it and is therefore not allowed.
If you read the EULA you will notice that M$ grants you rights. That means unless the laws of state your living in overwrites those, you have no rights except those granted clearly in the EULA!!!

The absolute minimum would be that the user needs 1 license for the OS he runs WB on and an additional one for each existing PE he/she owns.
While still the question would have to cleared up in the court of law. If WBPE or BARTPE are true PEs.
Cause if so, M$ regulations about PE would apply to those too and that would mean....
A PE can only be legal possesed by a systembuilder or OEM.
But M$ has never tryed to inforce that, as far as i know. And has only forced Bart to remove some special files that do not exist on an everage XP.

Things look a little different with the latest PE which is released under a less restrictive license.

(IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
« Next Oldest · App Scripts · Next Newest »
 

10 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Closed TopicStart new topic

Collapse

> Similar Topics

  Topic Replies Topic Starter Views Last Action
No new Pinned: Topic has attachmentsALL USERS please read here
(expecially those "from Afghanistan")
25 jaclaz 716 10th October 2007 - 10:02 PM
Last post by: online
No new Pinned: Please ALL .script developers read here
Embedding files in .scripts, the NEW thread
23 jaclaz 365 10th October 2007 - 12:42 PM
Last post by: psc
No new Topic has attachmentsScript for Altiris SVS
22 Trax 731 6th October 2007 - 08:23 AM
Last post by: TheHive
No new Script Levels
project depending ?!
20 psc 745 4th September 2007 - 11:38 AM
Last post by: MedEvil
No New Posts Script Template using GUI
7 allanf 531 23rd August 2007 - 06:32 PM
Last post by: allanf


 

Display Mode: Standard · Switch to: Linear+ · Switch to: Outline

Track this topic · Email this topic · Print this topic · Subscribe to this forum

- Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 15th October 2007 - 10:30 PM

MKPortal ©2003-2006 mkportal.it