#case clause in scala

[painterlegendx]

15 Dark Red Paintings Tips You Need To Learn Now | Dark Red Paintings

Part of the aegis account proposed by Admiral Donald Trump Monday would accommodate replacing Air Force One with a cast new Boeing 747-8. Procuring the new aircraft beneath the VC-25B Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization affairs would amount about $800.9 million.

Nail Art In Red Merry Christmas Decoration Rose Xmas Deer .. | dark red paintings With the proposed addition of the aircraft comes a new acrylic arrangement for Air Force One, replacing the architecture that has been in abode the Kennedy administering in 1962. Admiral John F. Kennedy himself advice appear up with the architecture of the even in cooperation with automated artist Raymond Loewy.Trump's redesigned Air Force One would affection a red, white and dejected blush arrangement as against to the accepted ablaze dejected and white. Some accept empiric a apparent affinity amid the proposed new acrylic job for Air Force One and the planes acclimated in Trump Shuttle, an airline endemic by Trump from 1989 until 1992."Due to advancing age, the VCA-25A is experiencing accretion out of account times—currently able-bodied over a year for abundant aliment to advance acquiescence with Federal Aeronautics Administering airworthiness standards," apprehend the account proposal.

Abstract Fractal Art Warm Vivid Colors Red Orange Yellow .. | dark red paintings The new Air Force One "will accommodate the President, agents and guests with safe and reliable air busline at the aforementioned akin of aegis and communications adequacy accessible in the White House," the angle stated.According to a account provided to Newsweek by the U.S. Air Force, "The VC-25B Affairs will alter the United States Air Force Presidential VC-25A fleet, which faces adequacy gaps, ascent aliment costs, and genitalia obsolescence as it ages aloft 30 years."Statistics from Boeing announce that the 747-8 is the fastest bartering jet in the apple with a canoeing acceleration of .885 Mach, or aloof over 679 mph. The aircraft can additionally fly ceaseless from Washington, D.C. to Hong Kong, which is 1,000 afar added than the accepted model.

La Scala - dark red paintings | dark red paintings Trump's attempts to accord Air Force One a new attending were blocked in 2019, although the affairs were included in the proposed aegis account for 2020.Connecticut Representative Joe Courtney added a accouterment preventing the acrylic job, adage it would accumulate the amount of replacing Air Force One aural bread-and-butter constraints."What we're aggravating to do is aloof accomplish abiding that the 'over and above' article accouterment of the Air Force One arrangement does not become basically a aback aperture for the affairs to drain in agreement of added costs," Courtney told the House Armed Services Committee in June 2019.

Big Flow - Acrylic Pour Painting in Warm Hues copyright .. | dark red paintings Over and aloft clauses are meant to awning assignment apparent during the action of adjustment that is not accurately mentioned in the antecedent contract.Air Force One is advised to be the president's aeriform abject of operations in case of an advance on the United States. It can be refueled in midair and is able with electronics advised to be able to bear an electromagnetic pulse.Although any Air Force aircraft which carries the admiral is appointed as Air Force One, the planes currently alike with that characterization were placed into account during the administering of Admiral George H. W. Bush.

I Love Papers | au74-mario-stabile-weird-red-dark .. | dark red paintings Updated 7:28 p.m. EST 02/11/2020: This adventure was adapted to accommodate advice from a account by the U.S. Air Force. 15 Dark Red Paintings Tips You Need To Learn Now | Dark Red Paintings - dark red paintings | Welcome to my weblog, within this time period I'll provide you with concerning keyword. And after this, this is the 1st photograph:

【◎】ω・*)ゞ ﾊﾝﾄﾞﾊﾟﾜｰ🏀 - dark red paintings | dark red paintings Why don't you consider photograph earlier mentioned? is usually in which wonderful???. if you feel therefore, I'l l provide you with several photograph once again underneath: So, if you'd like to acquire all of these wonderful pictures regarding (15 Dark Red Paintings Tips You Need To Learn Now | Dark Red Paintings), click on save icon to store these images for your laptop. They are ready for down load, if you appreciate and want to own it, click save symbol on the web page, and it'll be directly downloaded in your laptop.} Finally if you want to find new and the latest photo related to (15 Dark Red Paintings Tips You Need To Learn Now | Dark Red Paintings), please follow us on google plus or book mark this blog, we attempt our best to present you regular update with fresh and new images. Hope you love staying right here. For many up-dates and latest information about (15 Dark Red Paintings Tips You Need To Learn Now | Dark Red Paintings) shots, please kindly follow us on tweets, path, Instagram and google plus, or you mark this page on bookmark section, We attempt to provide you with update periodically with fresh and new pics, like your surfing, and find the right for you. Here you are at our site, articleabove (15 Dark Red Paintings Tips You Need To Learn Now | Dark Red Paintings) published .  Today we are pleased to declare that we have found a veryinteresting topicto be discussed, namely (15 Dark Red Paintings Tips You Need To Learn Now | Dark Red Paintings) Most people looking for info about(15 Dark Red Paintings Tips You Need To Learn Now | Dark Red Paintings) and of course one of these is you, is not it?

Muffin-427184 - dark red paintings | dark red paintings

Black Canvas Paintings | The Picassos - dark red paintings | dark red paintings

Nail Art In Red Merry Christmas Decoration Rose Xmas Deer .. | dark red paintings

Painting for sale - black and red abstract art #2385 - dark red paintings | dark red paintings

New: Art Pa!nt!ngs - dark red paintings | dark red paintings

The good witch - dark red paintings | dark red paintings

Red October - dark red paintings | dark red paintings

Arch Rock After Dark - dark red paintings | dark red paintings

Black Abstract Art Better Times And White Minimalism L .. | dark red paintings Read the full article

[theinvinciblenoob]

Salil Deshpande Contributor

Salil Deshpande serves as the managing director of Bain Capital Ventures. He focuses on infrastructure software and open source.

More posts by this contributor

After the Satoshi Roundtable, is there a way to bridge the bitcoin divide?

The Holy Grail of Web Scale

There’s a dark cloud on the horizon. The behavior of cloud infrastructure providers, such as Amazon, threatens the viability of open source.

During 13 years as a venture investor, I have invested in the companies behind many open-source projects:

Spring

Mule

Ruby Rails

Groovy

Grails

Maven

Gradle

Redis

SysDig

Hazelcast

Akka

Scala

Cassandra

Spinnaker

and others.

Open source has served society, and open-source business models have been successful and lucrative. Life was good.

Amazon’s behavior

I admire Amazon’s execution. In the venture business we are used to the large software incumbents (such as IBM, Oracle, HP, Compuware, CA, EMC, VMware, Citrix and others) being primarily big sales and distribution channels, which need to acquire innovation (i.e. startups) to feed their channel. Not Amazon. In July 2015, The Wall Street Journal quoted me as saying, “Amazon executes too well, almost like a startup. This is scary for everyone in the ecosystem.” That month, I wrote Fear The Amazon Juggernaut on investor site Seeking Alpha. AMZN is up 400 percent since I wrote that article. (I own AMZN indirectly.)

But to anyone other than its customers, Amazon is not a warm and fuzzy company. Numerous articles have detailed its bruising and cutthroat culture. Why would its use of open source be any different?

Go to Amazon Web Services (AWS) and hover over the Products menu at the top. You will see numerous open-source projects that Amazon did not create, but runs as-a-service. These provide Amazon with billions of dollars of revenue per year.

For example, Amazon takes Redis (the most loved database in StackOverflow’s developer survey), gives very little back, and runs it as a service, re-branded as AWS Elasticache. Many other popular open-source projects including, Elasticsearch, Kafka, Postgres, MySQL, Docker, Hadoop, Spark and more, have similarly been taken and offered as AWS products.

To be clear, this is not illegal. But we think it is wrong, and not conducive to sustainable open-source communities.

Commons Clause

In early 2018, I gathered together creators, CEOs or chief counsels of two dozen at-scale open-source companies, some of them public, to talk about what to do. In March I spoke to GeekWire about this effort. After a lot of constructive discussion the group decided that rather than beat around the bush with mixing and matching open-source licenses to discourage such behavior, we should create a straightforward clause that prohibits the behavior. We engaged respected open-source lawyer Heather Meeker to draft this clause.

In August 2018 Redis Labs announced their decision to add this rider (i.e. one additional paragraph) known as the Commons Clause to their liberal open-source license for certain add-on modules. Redis itself would remain on the permissive BSD license  —  nothing had changed with Redis itself! But the Redis Labs add-on modules will include the Commons Clause rider, which makes the source code available, without the ability to “sell” the modules, where “sell” includes offering them as a commercial service. The goal is to explicitly prevent the bad behavior of cloud infrastructure providers.

Anybody else, including enterprises like General Motors or General Electric, can still do all the things they used to be able to do with the software, even with Commons Clause applied to it. They can view and modify the source code and submit pull-requests to get their modifications into the product. They can even offer the software as-a-service internally for employees. What Commons Clause prevents is the running of a commercial service with somebody else’s open-source software in the manner that cloud infrastructure providers do.

This announcement has  — unsurprisingly, knowing the open-source community  — prompted spirited responses, both favorable and critical. At the risk of oversimplifying: those in favor view this as a logical and positive evolution in open-source licensing that allows open-source companies to run viable businesses while investing in open-source projects. Michael DeHaan, creator of Ansible, in Why Open Source Needs New Licenses, put one part particularly well:

We see people running open source “foundations” and web sites that are essentially talking heads, spewing political arguments about the definition of “open source” as described by something called “The Open Source Initiative”, which contains various names which have attained some level of popularity or following. They attempt to state that such a license where the source code is freely available, but use cases are limited, are ���not open source”. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed.

Those neutral or against point out that the Commons Clause makes software not open source, which is accurate, and that making parts of the code base proprietary is against the ethos of open source; and Redis Labs must be desperate and having trouble making money.

First, do not worry about Redis Labs. The company is doing very, very well. And Redis is stronger, more loved and more BSD than ever before.

More importantly, we think it is time to reexamine the ethos of open source in today’s environment. When open source became popular, it was designed for practitioners to experiment with and build on, while contributing back to the community. No company was providing infrastructure as a service. No company was taking an open-source project, re-branding it, running it as a service, keeping the profits and giving very little back.

Our view is that open-source software was never intended for cloud infrastructure companies to take and sell. That is not the original ethos of open source. Commons Clause is reviving the original ethos of open source. Academics, hobbyists or developers wishing to use a popular open-source project to power a component of their application can still do so. But if you want to take substantially the same software that someone else has built, and offer it as a service, for your own profit, that’s not in the spirit of the open-source community.

As it turns out in the case of the Commons Clause, that can make the source code not technically open source. But that is something we must live with, to preserve the original ethos.

Apache + Commons Clause

Redis Labs released certain add-on modules as Apache + Commons Clause. Redis Labs made amply clear that the application of Commons Clause made them not open source, and that Redis itself remains open source and BSD-licensed.

Some rabid open-source wonks accused Redis Labs of trying to trick the community into thinking that modules were open source, because they used the word “Apache.” (They were reported to be foaming at the mouth while making these accusations, but in fairness it could have been just drool.)

There’s no trick. The Commons Clause is a rider that is to be attached to any permissive open-source license. Because various open-source projects use various open-source licenses, when releasing software using Commons Clause, one must specify to which underlying permissive open-source license one is attaching Commons Clause.

Why not AGPL?

There are two key reasons to not use AGPL in this scenario, an open-source license that says that you must release to the public any modifications you make when you run AGPL-licensed code as a service.

First, AGPL makes it inconvenient but does not prevent cloud infrastructure providers from engaging in the abusive behavior described above. It simply says that they must release any modifications they make while engaging in such behavior. Second, AGPL contains language about software patents that is unnecessary and disliked by a number of enterprises.

Many of our portfolio companies with AGPL projects have received requests from large enterprises to move to a more permissive license, since the use of AGPL is against their company’s policy.

Balance

Cloud infrastructure providers are not bad guys or acting with bad intentions. Open source has always been a balancing act. Many of us believe in our customers and peers seeing our source code, making improvements and sharing back. It’s always a leap of faith to distribute one’s work product for free and to trust that you’ll be able to put food on the table. Sometimes, with some projects, a natural balance occurs without much deliberate effort. But at other times, the natural balance does not occur: We are seeing this more and more with infrastructure open source, especially as cloud infrastructure providers seek to differentiate by moving up the stack from commodity compute and storage to higher level infrastructure services.

Revisions

The Commons Clause as of this writing is at version 1.0. There will be revisions and tweaks in the future to ensure that Commons Clause implements its goals. We’d love your input.

Differences of opinion on Commons Clause that we have seen expressed so far are essentially differences of philosophy. Much criticism has come from open-source wonks who are not in the business of making money with software. They have a different philosophy, but that is not surprising, because their job is to be political activists, not build value in companies.

Some have misconstrued that it prevents people from offering maintenance, support or professional services. This is a misreading of the language. Some have claimed that it conflicts with AGPL. Commons Clause is intended to be used with open-source licenses that are more permissive than AGPL, so that AGPL does not have to be used! Still, even with AGPL, few users of an author’s work would deem it prudent to simply disregard an author’s statement of intent to apply Commons Clause.

Protecting open source 

Some open-source stakeholders are confused. Whose side should they be on? Commons Clause is new, and we expected debate. The people behind this initiative are committed open-source advocates, and our intent is to protect open source from an existential threat. We hope others will rally to the cause, so that open-source companies can make money, open source can be viable and open-source developers can get paid for their contributions.

via TechCrunch

[fmservers]

Commons Clause stops open-source abuse

Salil Deshpande Contributor

Salil Deshpande serves as the managing director of Bain Capital Ventures. He focuses on infrastructure software and open source.

More posts by this contributor

After the Satoshi Roundtable, is there a way to bridge the bitcoin divide?

The Holy Grail of Web Scale

There’s a dark cloud on the horizon. The behavior of cloud infrastructure providers, such as Amazon, threatens the viability of open source.

During 13 years as a venture investor, I have invested in the companies behind many open-source projects:

Spring

Mule

Ruby Rails

Groovy

Grails

Maven

Gradle

Redis

SysDig

Hazelcast

Akka

Scala

Cassandra

Spinnaker

and others.

Open source has served society, and open-source business models have been successful and lucrative. Life was good.

Amazon’s behavior

I admire Amazon’s execution. In the venture business we are used to the large software incumbents (such as IBM, Oracle, HP, Compuware, CA, EMC, VMware, Citrix and others) being primarily big sales and distribution channels, which need to acquire innovation (i.e. startups) to feed their channel. Not Amazon. In July 2015, The Wall Street Journal quoted me as saying, “Amazon executes too well, almost like a startup. This is scary for everyone in the ecosystem.” That month, I wrote Fear The Amazon Juggernaut on investor site Seeking Alpha. AMZN is up 400 percent since I wrote that article. (I own AMZN indirectly.)

But to anyone other than its customers, Amazon is not a warm and fuzzy company. Numerous articles have detailed its bruising and cutthroat culture. Why would its use of open source be any different?

Go to Amazon Web Services (AWS) and hover over the Products menu at the top. You will see numerous open-source projects that Amazon did not create, but runs as-a-service. These provide Amazon with billions of dollars of revenue per year.

For example, Amazon takes Redis (the most loved database in StackOverflow’s developer survey), gives very little back, and runs it as a service, re-branded as AWS Elasticache. Many other popular open-source projects including, Elasticsearch, Kafka, Postgres, MySQL, Docker, Hadoop, Spark and more, have similarly been taken and offered as AWS products.

To be clear, this is not illegal. But we think it is wrong, and not conducive to sustainable open-source communities.

Commons Clause

In early 2018, I gathered together creators, CEOs or chief counsels of two dozen at-scale open-source companies, some of them public, to talk about what to do. In March I spoke to GeekWire about this effort. After a lot of constructive discussion the group decided that rather than beat around the bush with mixing and matching open-source licenses to discourage such behavior, we should create a straightforward clause that prohibits the behavior. We engaged respected open-source lawyer Heather Meeker to draft this clause.

In August 2018 Redis Labs announced their decision to add this rider (i.e. one additional paragraph) known as the Commons Clause to their liberal open-source license for certain add-on modules. Redis itself would remain on the permissive BSD license  —  nothing had changed with Redis itself! But the Redis Labs add-on modules will include the Commons Clause rider, which makes the source code available, without the ability to “sell” the modules, where “sell” includes offering them as a commercial service. The goal is to explicitly prevent the bad behavior of cloud infrastructure providers.

Anybody else, including enterprises like General Motors or General Electric, can still do all the things they used to be able to do with the software, even with Commons Clause applied to it. They can view and modify the source code and submit pull-requests to get their modifications into the product. They can even offer the software as-a-service internally for employees. What Commons Clause prevents is the running of a commercial service with somebody else’s open-source software in the manner that cloud infrastructure providers do.

This announcement has  — unsurprisingly, knowing the open-source community  — prompted spirited responses, both favorable and critical. At the risk of oversimplifying: those in favor view this as a logical and positive evolution in open-source licensing that allows open-source companies to run viable businesses while investing in open-source projects. Michael DeHaan, creator of Ansible, in Why Open Source Needs New Licenses, put one part particularly well:

We see people running open source “foundations” and web sites that are essentially talking heads, spewing political arguments about the definition of “open source” as described by something called “The Open Source Initiative”, which contains various names which have attained some level of popularity or following. They attempt to state that such a license where the source code is freely available, but use cases are limited, are “not open source”. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed.

Those neutral or against point out that the Commons Clause makes software not open source, which is accurate, and that making parts of the code base proprietary is against the ethos of open source; and Redis Labs must be desperate and having trouble making money.

First, do not worry about Redis Labs. The company is doing very, very well. And Redis is stronger, more loved and more BSD than ever before.

More importantly, we think it is time to reexamine the ethos of open source in today’s environment. When open source became popular, it was designed for practitioners to experiment with and build on, while contributing back to the community. No company was providing infrastructure as a service. No company was taking an open-source project, re-branding it, running it as a service, keeping the profits and giving very little back.

Our view is that open-source software was never intended for cloud infrastructure companies to take and sell. That is not the original ethos of open source. Commons Clause is reviving the original ethos of open source. Academics, hobbyists or developers wishing to use a popular open-source project to power a component of their application can still do so. But if you want to take substantially the same software that someone else has built, and offer it as a service, for your own profit, that’s not in the spirit of the open-source community.

As it turns out in the case of the Commons Clause, that can make the source code not technically open source. But that is something we must live with, to preserve the original ethos.

Apache + Commons Clause

Redis Labs released certain add-on modules as Apache + Commons Clause. Redis Labs made amply clear that the application of Commons Clause made them not open source, and that Redis itself remains open source and BSD-licensed.

Some rabid open-source wonks accused Redis Labs of trying to trick the community into thinking that modules were open source, because they used the word “Apache.” (They were reported to be foaming at the mouth while making these accusations, but in fairness it could have been just drool.)

There’s no trick. The Commons Clause is a rider that is to be attached to any permissive open-source license. Because various open-source projects use various open-source licenses, when releasing software using Commons Clause, one must specify to which underlying permissive open-source license one is attaching Commons Clause.

Why not AGPL?

There are two key reasons to not use AGPL in this scenario, an open-source license that says that you must release to the public any modifications you make when you run AGPL-licensed code as a service.

First, AGPL makes it inconvenient but does not prevent cloud infrastructure providers from engaging in the abusive behavior described above. It simply says that they must release any modifications they make while engaging in such behavior. Second, AGPL contains language about software patents that is unnecessary and disliked by a number of enterprises.

Many of our portfolio companies with AGPL projects have received requests from large enterprises to move to a more permissive license, since the use of AGPL is against their company’s policy.

Balance

Cloud infrastructure providers are not bad guys or acting with bad intentions. Open source has always been a balancing act. Many of us believe in our customers and peers seeing our source code, making improvements and sharing back. It’s always a leap of faith to distribute one’s work product for free and to trust that you’ll be able to put food on the table. Sometimes, with some projects, a natural balance occurs without much deliberate effort. But at other times, the natural balance does not occur: We are seeing this more and more with infrastructure open source, especially as cloud infrastructure providers seek to differentiate by moving up the stack from commodity compute and storage to higher level infrastructure services.

Revisions

The Commons Clause as of this writing is at version 1.0. There will be revisions and tweaks in the future to ensure that Commons Clause implements its goals. We’d love your input.

Differences of opinion on Commons Clause that we have seen expressed so far are essentially differences of philosophy. Much criticism has come from open-source wonks who are not in the business of making money with software. They have a different philosophy, but that is not surprising, because their job is to be political activists, not build value in companies.

Some have misconstrued that it prevents people from offering maintenance, support or professional services. This is a misreading of the language. Some have claimed that it conflicts with AGPL. Commons Clause is intended to be used with open-source licenses that are more permissive than AGPL, so that AGPL does not have to be used! Still, even with AGPL, few users of an author’s work would deem it prudent to simply disregard an author’s statement of intent to apply Commons Clause.

Protecting open source 

Some open-source stakeholders are confused. Whose side should they be on? Commons Clause is new, and we expected debate. The people behind this initiative are committed open-source advocates, and our intent is to protect open source from an existential threat. We hope others will rally to the cause, so that open-source companies can make money, open source can be viable and open-source developers can get paid for their contributions.

Via David Riggs https://techcrunch.com

[qwertsypage]

9 software protection steps you must do to keep your source code safe

Protecting your code against illegal copying and copyright infringements should be on the top of your list of priorities. If your core business is software development or you happen to create software to meet your custom requirements, defending your software is as important as writing the source code itself. In this article, you will find software protection steps to go through. 

  Here are 9 software protection steps you should. 

  Patenting Your Software

Most experts agree that patenting the ideas and concepts surrounding your source code is an ongoing process. Business practices, however, show that even popular services such as Facebook and Twitter failed to patent what really matters. You can follow the example of companies such as Motorola and BlackBerry who have patented not only their research but also components that matter to peers and competitors as well.

  Patent as early as possible

The U.S. patent authorities may need up to five years to issue you a patent. On the other hand, you can file for a provisional patent with minimal details whenever you wish and provide the rest of patent details up to 12 months later. So, act fast and defend your software by patenting early. You will have plenty of time to provide viable proof of your patented work later. You should be aware that it takes some 40 months to get a patent in Europe, so the above advice applies to European patents as well.

  Not all patents are equal

A patent issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office provides little to no protection outside the United States. The average software developer should take into account all the different jurisdictions where the software source code should be protected. You can proceed on a case-per-case basis when geographic locations are concerned. Research carefully all local copyright legislation and practices.

  Source: Statista

  Software Escrows

Often your customers will want assurances that if something was to happen to you or your business they will be protected and be able to continue using the software you provide them. This normally entails your customers asking for access to your source code so that in worst case scenarios they could continue to maintain the critical application they depend on.

Giving your source code to your customers is obviously not a business savvy move and so software escrows were created to alleviate the problem.

A software escrow service stores the source code with a secure 3rd party escrow agent until a mutually agreed upon event such as bankruptcy occurs. This way you do not have to give access to your source code and your customer is still protected.

  Trademarks, Copyrights, and Trade Secrets

Motorola cashed a good number of their patents while BlackBerry is still fighting legal battles to cash on their patented software and hardware solutions. In any event, you should be well acquainted with the basics of intellectual property (IP) legislation to go through the software protection steps in the best possible way.

For instance, you should distinguish between copyright protection that extends only to expressions, and not to ideas, as well as mathematical concepts while a patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention.

  Invest in IP Research

Online tools are available to research patent and trademark info before you release your product on the market. Performing your own copyright research will save you both time and money. Furthermore, it will give you an overview of your own market as seen from a legal perspective – who owns what and when protected IP rights eventually expire.

  Get a reliable legal advisor

You can perform legal research yourself but professional legal protection requires professional legal advisors. Directive 2009/24/EC on the legal protection of computer programs across the European Union is not a text you would like to read without a legal advisor on your side.

  Trademark Registration

From a legal perspective, your software code is just a stack of text. So, patents and trademarks are what matter. Take your time and register any trademarks you deem necessary for the protection of your software code. The same applies to any copyrights you have not still protected.

  Non-Disclosure Clauses

You can file with a court to defend your intellectual property concerning software code. You have both the U.S. Copyright Office and the EU legislation on your side in case of copyright infringement. But you cannot prevent trade secrets from leaking unless you adopt comprehensive non-disclosure agreements contracted between you and your employees and partners. You should also adopt strict copyright policies regarding all of your licenses, sales contracts and technology transfer agreements.

  Protect early, protect everything

You should be aware that source code protection is simply not enough to protect your software products. You need to think about the protection of your software as a combination of multiple components that include patents, trademarks, trade secrets and copyrights. Registering the right URLs early and protecting them in the right way is also part of a viable strategy to defend your IP rights.

  Conclusion: software protection steps

  Getting professional advice concerning any commercial software or application is required by any means. Nonetheless, you can secure basic source code protection by implementing the above steps largely yourselves.

One thing you should bear in mind is that most of the source code produced is hard to protect through patents. As we said, you cannot copyright ideas and that is why so many similar software apps by different providers exist in the first place. Facebook cannot have copyright over the very idea of a social network, they can patent only the specific components of their implementation. And it is how source code protection legislation works in any field of life.

Furthermore, copyright is largely automatically protected in all countries that have signed the Berne Convention, an international agreement that governs copyright. Protecting your source code by the means of patents requires passing through an approval procedure by a government agency all over the world.

To recall, software protection steps should include patents, trademarks, trade secrets and copyrights.

  About the author

Jorge Sagastume is a Vice President at EscrowTech International, Inc. with 12 years of experience protecting IP and earning the trust of the greatest companies in the world. Jorge has been invited to speak on IP issues by foreign governments and international agencies. You can connect with Jorge on LinkedIn.

  If you found this article about software protection steps interesting, you might like…

  BDD: user interface testing

F-bound over a generic type in Scala

Microservices vs Monolithic architecture

“Almost-infinit” scalability

The importance of a software architecture

Soft skills of a software architect  

Software architecture books

Benefits of software architecture  

Software architecture meetups in Barcelona 

   The post 9 software protection steps you must do to keep your source code safe appeared first on Apiumhub.

9 software protection steps you must do to keep your source code safe published first on https://koresolpage.tumblr.com/