Tackat did these icons for the KDE project (which is not an OS, but a desktop environment) and released them under Open Source. so you are expressively allowed to do derivative work under the condition that this derivative work is released under Open Source as well and a copy of the GPL is included in the distributed file.

i really wonder what gives anybody the right to ignore his terms and conditions? just because he is not Treetog does not mean this is right, especially when he does allow his icons to be used.

You are correct about the GPL to be included I will update my linux themes that use the KDE likeness with the GPL... will you stop using your version of windows now that you have violated your EULA? By hacking the dll's to modify your computers appearance.

moshi...re #42....it is quite difficult for site admins to distinguish between what is or isn't available under GPL...we are dependent on the uploader who sourced the object/s.
If/when made aware of the situation it can be dealt with.
It has SFA to do with ignoring anything or anyone unless it's treetog....blah blah....that is insulting, and you know it.

Baker...re #41..I know what you mean about the 'difference' but in truth the icon's image is being publicly distributed both ways...only 'perhaps' motive is different...

cool
i´m still not sure about that EULA thing. can you point me to the exact paragraph? i still have the unmodified originals backed up, so it could be a tricky question.

And re #39...it's been exiled, as has a half dozen others...so far.

It's the sort of response you are more likely to get here than several other places I could mention...

Jafo: you´re right. abusing Treetog in that statement was stupid.

5. LIMITATION ON REVERSE ENGINEERING,
DECOMPILATION, AND DISASSEMBLY. You may not reverse
engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Product, except and
only to the extent that it is expressly permitted by
applicable law notwithstanding this limitation.

this is from the win2k eula however you will find similar statements in all MS products. They do not permit you to change anything in their code. Unless the law explicitly states your allowed too.

note that this paragraph was only 5 rules in... not alot of reading to get there moshi

No, moshi....the insult was towards the admins and wizops of this site in general, implying a different set of rules apply for 'some' and not for 'others'.

THAT is the insult.

You know damn well that myslf and the other admins here go out of our way to 'try' to protect the rights of any artist, known or unknown.

No, maybe you don't know that.
You see a handfull of 'problem works' and scream the sky is falling.

Think back a year or so to Devart's chick-wall section...ask bakerstreet just how horrendous it was...until it was cleaned up of photo theft.

This site has a pretty good track record...eg fewer and fewer Mac logos around, etc.....bet you can't say the same for the other sites...

OK, so some slip through...maybe due to 'auto upload', probably just accident/uncertainty....but perhaps you'd boggle at the number culled before they get in...

MODERATOR HAT ON:

ENOUGH GUYS. If you want to get into another mental masterbation excercise on copyright do it in another god damn post? Understand?

What an assanine argument. What's next? Should magazines say that Windows XP is crap because most wallpapers available for it suck? Object Desktop is a suite of desktop enhancements that includes virtual desktops, integrated ZIP, WindowBlinds, DesktopX, ObjectBar, Tab LaucnhPad, Object Edit, IconPackager, etc.

The review should cover the functionality of the software. Software that is in use by millions of people. If they want to argue that third party skins and themes and wallpapers and such violate copyright or whatever then they should do a seperate article on it.

But enough with the damn thread hijacking. If someone has a problem with the copyright protection of this site, then sue us. Email [email protected]. The copyright protection of this site meets our standards. If you disagree, then get a lawyer or start your own thread where you and piss and moan about it to others who want to similarly piss or moan.

Do I make myself crystal clear?

Jafo: "only 'perhaps' motive is different..."

The motive for uploading a screenshot is 'perhaps' to redistrbute the items therein? Really, even 1% of the time?

Do developers themselves assume people are going to cut icons out and re-use them when they post screenshots of their software? Hardly. I am sure the original developers don't expect anyone to steal icons from the screensots they post. Nor do I when I post images of my destop.

So screenshots have to be *abused*. I know of no legitimate reason to distribute a zip file full of someone else's copyrighted icons...

Regardless, the developers themselves should decide. Time will tell.



Post #52 makes the situation... relatively... clear. No further need for discussion.

IN ADDITION:

See the post regarding on topic. Grayhaze was nice enough to create his own thread here informing users about a hack review. It is disrespectful to those who take the time to create threads to hijack them into ones pet topic. If you want to discuss copyrights, trademarks, case law, create your own thread and go for it. Don't hijack someone else's thread.

Jafo: i know you do a good job here. heck, i just wanted to give a few links for sig as he was so surprised on that "blatant copyright theft" in that review. but tell Paxx to at least edit the comment to give a little credit to Misery on that Nijikon Fetchi WB skin. else it really looks as there are different rules.

§tatic: well, i did not do re-engeneering nor decompiling nor disassembling. i edited a file that came with the install, that is true, but then the registry and other files get altered as well, so i am not fully convinced.

sorry for the last one. took to long to post.

My email to those morons:

Dear PC Zone Magazine,

In a recent article (June 2003 issue) about Object Desktop, a program from Stardock Inc. certain accusations were made, that were not completely true, and the statements should not have been made without any research into the programs mentioned. However, the article made it's way into your magazine, anyways, despite the fact that no actual research was done on the programs in question, and no tact was used in the way that your columnist made his improper claims.

Here is a quote from your article; "The vast bulk of replacement frame, images and cursors are garish, blatant copyright theft or just plain awful." The truth is that, even at Stardock's own website, www.wincustmoize.com, any copyright infringement is shunned upon, and it is in the terms and conditions of the site that no one attempt to upload copyrighted material without permission from the original author. The truth, which you apparently have not attempted to find, is that every skin that is uploaded is moderated for quality. Any skins that don't work properly, or are found to infringe on copyrights are not shown on the site, and authors may be removed from the site, and have their ISP number blocked for disobeying the terms of service of the site. On Wincustomize.com you will find this in the rules of the site "If you upload something that is owned by someone else or contains materials owned by someone else, we have the right to delete that item without notification," and also the following "Images taken from other sources cannot be accepted without permission, including but not limited to pictures taken from movies, television shows, games, web sites, magazines, celebrity pictures. However, although they are theoretically also copyrighted, we will be lenient concerning corporate logos and OS ports, unless we are approached by the companies and asked to remove them. An exception: sports logos. Sport organization make money selling the right to use their logos and explicitly forbid the distribution of art containing their logo unless a license is purchased."
Also I would like to know if you can site specific examples of copyright theft that you mention, so that I could forward them to Stardock, and the others at Wincustomize, so that the skins in question may be removed. I am sure however you will find very little on a Stardock sponsored website at all, since all skins are moderated. I find that a journalist is lacking when he makes claims that he can not support, and this is very unprofessional to make unjust claims of a company or product you obviously have no first hand knowledge of.

You mention that the rest of the skins, that aren't copyright theft are "awful". Most of the artists that design the skins for the programs in object desktop design custom interfaces for other programs such as Trillian, Litestep, Aston Shell, and many others. Authors that make skins for Object Desktop designed the interface for the movie The Recruit, and commercial interfaces have been designed by Pixtudio.com, which specializes in skins for many Stardock products. Pixtudio has made skins for major companies like Nintendo, and NVidia. Two multi-billion dollar companies don't think the Skins are "awful." In fact, Nintendo and Nvida both paid for Pixtudio to make custom Windowblinds skins, and yes Windowblinds is a big part of Object Desktop. A Windowblinds skin was even made for PC Magazine, and they gave Object Desktop an awesome review. The top artists that work with Stardock make skins for almost every skinnable program on the net, and are respected in the skinning community for their interfaces that they make for other programs as well as skins for Windowblinds, Object Bar, and Desktop X which are all parts of Object Desktop. So the interfaces for every skinning program on the internet should be called bad and not just Stardock's, if what you say is true. The top skinners in the community have up to 5 years experience skinning if not more, and up 20 years with graphics programs. So, to say that an artist with that much experience makes something "awful" is a blatent insult, and is not called for, however to say that a journalist that makes untrue claims, and insults others is ignorant, is 100 percent justified in my eyes. I noticed that you mentioned cursors as well, Object Desktop does not include any cursor program when you buy it. You may be referring to a program called Cursor XP which is sold separately, but like most of your other comments, if you had done research you would have known that. So if your one of your claims isn't even about object desktop, then why did you put it into your article as though it was a problem with Object Desktop.

Here is another quote from your magazine; "Object Desktop - Turns Windows into an unusable, graphically offensive, mess." In fact Windowblinds which is a part of Object Desktop, and skins the windows themselves, uses the same API's as the default Windows XP theme, so any problems inherent in Windowblinds would also be inherent in Windows itself without Windowblinds. Also Windowblinds uses 2 megabytes less ram than the default Windows XP theme, issues of stability don't apply since Windows will run faster with it, than without it. Windowblinds is in the Windows catalog, and is endorsed by Microsoft, no other program of it's type is. Even Microsoft endorses it over their own built in skinning engine. Microsoft considers it an enhancement to their software, and it is no way unusable since a majority of the skins work much like the default Windows themes in functionality. The many Object Desktop programs will work wonderfully with novice to advanced users, because one can make subtle changes, with the looks, colors, and icons or one can add functionality with extra titlebar buttons, advanced taskbars, and MP3 player plugins.

I think this was terrible on the part of your magazine, and I think the author of that story should be repremanded for his blatent personal attacks against Stardock, and the artists that devote their time to making the skins and themes for Stardock products. He has no right to make comments that are untrue, and such action does not only make him look bad, but it makes everyone that works for your magazine look bad. I hope whatever his personal issues are that he has he gets them worked out, and this nonsense of his can stop, and I hope that your magazine can someday be something worth reading again.

da_zman20...unfortunately you 'may' be guilty of similar 'inaccuracies'.
When making 'claims' that something did or did not occur, it far more appropriate to pepper the statement/s with 'appears to' and/or 'alleges', etc.

When claims of unsubstantiated conduct are made it's appropriate that their efficacy is suitably 'protected'..

Only read the first few lines before hurriedly posting this...

he he he sorry, I was a little mad at their claims... but you make good points and I will remember that the next time I get angry with people like them...

The chances are that the journalist was given a topic, told to write x-amount of copy, was pointed to a proggy, proceeded NOT to 'RTFM', got himself into some form of 'mess', got miffed, and took it out on/in his article.

I have read worse in PC Answers...the 'Extreme Customizing' section makes amusing reading at best and me want to strangle the prick at worst.
THAT author clearly has a personal agenda, nothing more....and knows precious-little about what he speaks..

I think digital copyright's are just too confusing... it's best with authors to follow your advice jafo in regards to the icons and such...

and I agree with FrogBoy... the copyright on this site works... if you find something you don't agree with give it to an admin, i've never seen an issue given to admin that hasn't been handled promptly

There's a few I haven't gotten to as yet..but I'm working on it...

Whenever you wish someone to alter their 'ways', reasoned argument or better, polite discussion will get you further than going in, guns blazing...[unless you are lucky enough to have really BIG GUNS...thay always win arguments, etc]...