Re: Code To Pick A Date From A Calendar

Discussion in 'Java' started by Gene Wirchenko, Aug 6, 2012.

  1. To: Arne Vajhøj
    From: "Gene Wirchenko" <gene.wirchenko@1:261/38.remove-sao-this>

    To: Arne Vajhoj
    From: Gene Wirchenko <>

    On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 20:44:26 -0400, Arne Vajhoj <> wrote:

    >On 8/3/2012 8:58 AM, wrote:
    >> Does the code you posted have a copyright.

    >
    >It is expected that code posted to usenet is free for
    >everybody to use for whatever. Otherwise there were
    >not really any point in posting it.


    Nasty scenario: Get someone to use copyrighted code, and then sue
    them for it. Using a computing technique (modularisation), the poster and the
    suer may be different individuals.

    Copyrighted code posted here is still copyrighted.

    >A lawyer would probably fell down from the chair
    >hearing about such "expectations", but ...


    Well, yes.

    OTOH, if the code is short, I think that that would weaken any
    argument. Most anything posted here (attachments excepted) would be short.

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko

    -+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    -+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

    --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    --- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24
     
    Gene Wirchenko, Aug 6, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Gene Wirchenko

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    To: Gene Wirchenko
    From: "=?windows-1252?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?="
    <=?windows-1252?q?arne_vajh=f8j?=@1:261/38.remove-p82-this>

    To: Gene Wirchenko
    From: =?windows-1252?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= <>

    On 8/5/2012 9:39 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
    > On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 20:44:26 -0400, Arne Vajhoj <>
    > wrote:
    >> On 8/3/2012 8:58 AM, wrote:
    >>> Does the code you posted have a copyright.

    >>
    >> It is expected that code posted to usenet is free for
    >> everybody to use for whatever. Otherwise there were
    >> not really any point in posting it.

    >
    > Nasty scenario: Get someone to use copyrighted code, and then sue
    > them for it. Using a computing technique (modularisation), the poster
    > and the suer may be different individuals.


    Strange things has happened before.

    > Copyrighted code posted here is still copyrighted.


    Obviously code posted here is copyrighted.

    The question is whether posting to usenet implicit provides a "permissible
    license".

    Web fora where users has to register can require an explicit accept.

    SO:

    You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network is
    perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange under the Creative
    Commons Attribution Share Alike license. You grant Stack Exchange the perpetual
    and irrevocable right and license to use, copy, cache, publish, display,
    distribute, modify, create derivative works and store such Subscriber Content
    and to allow others to do so in any medium now known or hereinafter developed
    (rContent License%) in order to provide the Services, even if such Subscriber
    Content has been contributed and subsequently removed by You.

    E-E:

    By registering with Experts Exchange and posting Your Content on the Site, you
    hereby: (i) grant Experts Exchange a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable,
    unrestricted, transferable, fully sub-licensable, worldwide, royalty-free
    license to use, distribute, display, reproduce, perform, modify, adapt,
    publish, translate and create derivative works from Your Content in any form,
    media or technology, whether now-known or hereafter developed;

    I would argue that usenet posts via tradition, logic and similarity comes with
    an implicit license for free usage by anyone.

    Arne

    -+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    -+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

    --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    --- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24
     
    Arne Vajhøj, Aug 8, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Gene Wirchenko

    Mike Winter Guest

    To: =?windows-1252?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=
    From: "Mike Winter" <mike.winter@1:261/38.remove-p82-this>

    To: =?windows-1252?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=
    From: Mike Winter <>

    On 07/08/2012 00:30, Arne Vajhoj wrote:

    > Obviously code posted here is copyrighted.
    >
    > The question is whether posting to usenet implicit
    > provides a "permissible license".
    >
    > Web fora where users has to register can require an
    > explicit accept.
    >
    > SO:
    >
    > You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network
    > is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange under the
    > Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. You grant Stack
    > Exchange the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to use, copy,
    > cache, publish, display, distribute, modify, create derivative works and
    > store such Subscriber Content and to allow others to do so in any medium
    > now known or hereinafter developed (rContent License%) in order to
    > provide the Services, even if such Subscriber Content has been
    > contributed and subsequently removed by You.
    >
    > E-E:
    >
    > By registering with Experts Exchange and posting Your Content on the
    > Site, you hereby: (i) grant Experts Exchange a non-exclusive, perpetual,
    > irrevocable, unrestricted, transferable, fully sub-licensable,
    > worldwide, royalty-free license to use, distribute, display, reproduce,
    > perform, modify, adapt, publish, translate and create derivative works
    > from Your Content in any form, media or technology, whether now-known or
    > hereafter developed;
    >
    > I would argue that usenet posts via tradition, logic and
    > similarity comes with an implicit license for free
    > usage by anyone.


    If I'm not mistaken, those sorts of licenses are merely to permit sites that
    retain user submissions to store that content and resend it others in some form
    (usually forums) without infringing on copyright. It doesn't automatically
    allow other users to use that content as it's the site that is granted the
    license--the work isn't placed into the Public Domain.

    Of course, these licenses do mean that such websites could, in principle, take
    someones hard work and use it themselves even though the original creator
    retains ownership.

    I would argue that the "to allow others" phrase in the Stack Exchange terms is
    intended to refer only to third-parties that work with them to provide or
    develop its services rather than others generally, but it's ill-defined here
    and could extend to anyone SE deems applicable.

    Kind regards,
    Mike


    --
    Michael Winter -- Not a lawyer!
    Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

    -+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    -+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

    --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    --- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24
     
    Mike Winter, Aug 8, 2012
    #3
  4. To: =?windows-1252?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=
    From: "Gene Wirchenko" <gene.wirchenko@1:261/38.remove-p82-this>

    To: =?windows-1252?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=
    From: Gene Wirchenko <>

    On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:30:54 -0400, Arne Vajhoj <> wrote:

    >On 8/5/2012 9:39 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:


    [snip]

    >> Copyrighted code posted here is still copyrighted.

    >
    >Obviously code posted here is copyrighted.
    >
    >The question is whether posting to usenet implicit
    >provides a "permissible license".
    >
    >Web fora where users has to register can require an
    >explicit accept.
    >
    >SO:
    >
    >You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network
    >is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange under the
    >Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. You grant Stack


    If I post code that I do not have the copyright for, I can not
    give that right. I can agree with it all I want, but that is not the same
    thing.

    [snip]

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko

    -+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    -+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

    --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    --- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24
     
    Gene Wirchenko, Aug 8, 2012
    #4
  5. Gene Wirchenko

    Lew Guest

    To: Mike Winter
    From: "Lew" <lew@1:261/38.remove-p82-this>

    To: Mike Winter
    From: Lew <>

    On Monday, August 6, 2012 5:07:18 PM UTC-7, Mike Winter wrote:
    > On 07/08/2012 00:30, Arne Vajhoj wrote:
    >> Obviously code posted here is copyrighted.
    >>
    >> The question is whether posting to usenet implicit
    >> provides a "permissible license".
    >>
    >> Web fora where users has to register can require an
    >> explicit accept.

    >
    >> SO:
    >>
    >> You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network
    > > is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange under the
    > > Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. You grant Stack
    > > Exchange the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to use, copy,
    > > cache, publish, display, distribute, modify, create derivative works and
    > > store such Subscriber Content and to allow others to do so in any medium
    > > now known or hereinafter developed (rContent License%) in order to
    > > provide the Services, even if such Subscriber Content has been
    > > contributed and subsequently removed by You.

    > ...


    >> I would argue that usenet posts via tradition, logic and
    >> similarity comes with an implicit license for free
    >> usage by anyone.


    >
    > If I'm not mistaken, those sorts of licenses are merely to permit sites
    > that retain user submissions to store that content and resend it others
    > in some form (usually forums) without infringing on copyright. It
    > doesn't automatically allow other users to use that content as it's the
    > site that is granted the license--the work isn't placed into the Public
    > Domain.
    >
    > Of course, these licenses do mean that such websites could, in
    > principle, take someones hard work and use it themselves even though the
    > original creator retains ownership.
    >


    The Creative Commons License explicitly allows that, yes.

    > I would argue that the "to allow others" phrase in the Stack Exchange
    > terms is intended to refer only to third-parties that work with them to
    > provide or develop its services rather than others generally, but it's
    > ill-defined [sic] here and could extend to anyone SE deems applicable.


    You'd be mistaken.

    Stack Exchange explicitly specifies the Creative Commons Attribution Share
    Alike license.

    That's not ill defined and extends to everyone irrespective of whom SE deems
    applicable. It explicitly allows everyone access, not just SE. If they hadn't
    intended that, they wouldn't have specified a license that explicitly exists
    for the very purpose of extending universal access.

    --
    Lew

    -+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    -+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

    --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    --- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24
     
    Lew, Aug 8, 2012
    #5
  6. Gene Wirchenko

    Lew Guest

    To: Gene Wirchenko
    From: "Lew" <lew@1:261/38.remove-qhs-this>

    To: Gene Wirchenko
    From: Lew <>

    Gene Wirchenko wrote:
    > If I post code that I do not have the copyright for, I can not
    > give that right. I can agree with it all I want, but that is not the
    > same thing.


    That's not the point. The point is that if you contribute code under that
    agreement, and you do not hold copyright, *you* are liable for the
    infringement, not the site.

    --
    Lew

    -+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    -+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

    --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    --- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24
     
    Lew, Aug 9, 2012
    #6
  7. To: Lew
    From: "Gene Wirchenko" <gene.wirchenko@1:261/38.remove-qhs-this>

    To: Lew
    From: Gene Wirchenko <>

    On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:41:06 -0700 (PDT), Lew <> wrote:

    >Gene Wirchenko wrote:
    >> If I post code that I do not have the copyright for, I can not
    >> give that right. I can agree with it all I want, but that is not the
    >> same thing.

    >
    >That's not the point. The point is that if you contribute code under
    >that agreement, and you do not hold copyright, *you* are liable
    >for the infringement, not the site.


    So? The site is not going to get the right.

    This could lead to trouble if a programmer posts part of an
    employer's app, say a useful function.

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko

    -+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    -+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

    --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    --- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24
     
    Gene Wirchenko, Aug 9, 2012
    #7
  8. Gene Wirchenko

    Lew Guest

    To: Gene Wirchenko
    From: "Lew" <lew@1:261/38.remove-qhs-this>

    To: Gene Wirchenko
    From: Lew <>

    Gene Wirchenko wrote:
    > Lew wrote:
    >>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
    >>> If I post code that I do not have the copyright for, I can not
    >>> give that right. I can agree with it all I want, but that is not the
    >>> same thing.

    >
    >>That's not the point. The point is that if you contribute code under
    >>that agreement, and you do not hold copyright, *you* are liable
    >>for the infringement, not the site.

    >
    > So? The site is not going to get the right.
    >
    > This could lead to trouble if a programmer posts part of an
    > employer's app, say a useful function.


    Trouble for whom?

    That's the point.

    The site's rules mean they aren't the ones who get in trouble.

    It isn't about whether the site gets the right, it's about whether they get the
    liability.

    That explains why they make that rule. What more are you looking for?

    --
    Lew

    -+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    -+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

    --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    --- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24
     
    Lew, Aug 9, 2012
    #8
  9. Gene Wirchenko

    Mike Winter Guest

    To: Lew
    From: "Mike Winter" <mike.winter@1:261/38.remove-qhs-this>

    To: Lew
    From: Mike Winter <>

    On 07/08/2012 19:39, Lew wrote:
    > On Monday, August 6, 2012 5:07:18 PM UTC-7, Mike Winter wrote:
    >> I would argue that the "to allow others" phrase in the Stack Exchange
    >> terms is intended to refer only to third-parties that work with them to
    >> provide or develop its services rather than others generally, but it's
    >> ill-defined [sic] here and could extend to anyone SE deems applicable.

    >
    > You'd be mistaken.
    >
    > Stack Exchange explicitly specifies the Creative Commons Attribution
    > Share Alike license.


    Unfortunately, as it was late I hadn't taken the time to read that license so
    you are of course correct with regard to its implications.

    --
    Mike Winter
    Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

    -+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    -+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

    --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    --- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24
     
    Mike Winter, Aug 9, 2012
    #9
  10. To: Lew
    From: "Gene Wirchenko" <gene.wirchenko@1:261/38.remove-qhs-this>

    To: Lew
    From: Gene Wirchenko <>

    On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 14:51:52 -0700 (PDT), Lew <> wrote:

    >Gene Wirchenko wrote:
    >> Lew wrote:
    >>>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
    >>>> If I post code that I do not have the copyright for, I can not
    >>>> give that right. I can agree with it all I want, but that is not the
    >>>> same thing.

    >>
    >>>That's not the point. The point is that if you contribute code under
    >>>that agreement, and you do not hold copyright, *you* are liable
    >>>for the infringement, not the site.

    >>
    >> So? The site is not going to get the right.
    >>
    >> This could lead to trouble if a programmer posts part of an
    >> employer's app, say a useful function.

    >
    >Trouble for whom?
    >
    >That's the point.
    >
    >The site's rules mean they aren't the ones who get in trouble.


    They could be the recipient of a cease-and-desist order.

    >It isn't about whether the site gets the right, it's about whether they
    >get the liability.
    >
    >That explains why they make that rule. What more are you looking for?


    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko

    -+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    -+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

    --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    --- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24
     
    Gene Wirchenko, Aug 9, 2012
    #10
  11. Gene Wirchenko

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    To: Gene Wirchenko
    From: "Arne Vajhoj" <arne.vajhoj@1:261/38.remove-nlb-this>

    To: Gene Wirchenko
    From: Arne Vajhoj <>

    On 8/7/2012 10:53 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
    > On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 14:51:52 -0700 (PDT), Lew <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
    >>> Lew wrote:
    >>>> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
    >>>>> If I post code that I do not have the copyright for, I can not
    >>>>> give that right. I can agree with it all I want, but that is not the
    >>>>> same thing.
    >>>
    >>>> That's not the point. The point is that if you contribute code under
    >>>> that agreement, and you do not hold copyright, *you* are liable
    >>>> for the infringement, not the site.
    >>>
    >>> So? The site is not going to get the right.
    >>>
    >>> This could lead to trouble if a programmer posts part of an
    >>> employer's app, say a useful function.

    >>
    >> Trouble for whom?
    >>
    >> That's the point.
    >>
    >> The site's rules mean they aren't the ones who get in trouble.

    >
    > They could be the recipient of a cease-and-desist order.


    The general practice in most countries for user provided content is that:
    - if the site removes illegal content when being notified about
    the problem then they are fine
    - if the site does not do that then the courts go after the site

    Arne

    -+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    -+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

    --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    --- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24
     
    Arne Vajhøj, Aug 13, 2012
    #11
  12. Gene Wirchenko

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    To: Gene Wirchenko
    From: "Arne Vajhoj" <arne.vajhoj@1:261/38.remove-nlb-this>

    To: Gene Wirchenko
    From: Arne Vajhoj <>

    On 8/7/2012 5:17 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
    > On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:41:06 -0700 (PDT), Lew <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
    >>> If I post code that I do not have the copyright for, I can not
    >>> give that right. I can agree with it all I want, but that is not the
    >>> same thing.

    >>
    >> That's not the point. The point is that if you contribute code under
    >> that agreement, and you do not hold copyright, *you* are liable
    >> for the infringement, not the site.

    >
    > So? The site is not going to get the right.
    >
    > This could lead to trouble if a programmer posts part of an
    > employer's app, say a useful function.


    Sure.

    And if you buy a car from someone that does not own that car, then you can also
    get in problems.

    Arne

    -+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    -+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

    --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    --- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24
     
    Arne Vajhøj, Aug 13, 2012
    #12
  13. Gene Wirchenko

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    To: Gene Wirchenko
    From: "Arne Vajhoj" <arne.vajhoj@1:261/38.remove-nlb-this>

    To: Gene Wirchenko
    From: Arne Vajhoj <>

    On 8/7/2012 12:41 AM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
    > On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:30:54 -0400, Arne Vajhoj <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On 8/5/2012 9:39 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:

    >
    > [snip]
    >
    >>> Copyrighted code posted here is still copyrighted.

    >>
    >> Obviously code posted here is copyrighted.
    >>
    >> The question is whether posting to usenet implicit
    >> provides a "permissible license".
    >>
    >> Web fora where users has to register can require an
    >> explicit accept.
    >>
    >> SO:
    >>
    >> You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network
    >> is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange under the
    >> Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. You grant Stack

    >
    > If I post code that I do not have the copyright for, I can not
    > give that right. I can agree with it all I want, but that is not the
    > same thing.


    That is obvious.

    But it is no different from any other context.

    You can not give away something you don't own.

    Arne

    -+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    -+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

    --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
    * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
    --- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
    Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24
     
    Arne Vajhøj, Aug 13, 2012
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    7
    Views:
    258
    Arne Vajhøj
    Aug 4, 2012
  2. Eric Sosman
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    148
    Steve W. Jackson
    Aug 3, 2012
  3. clusardi2k

    Code To Pick A Date From A Calendar

    clusardi2k, Aug 3, 2012, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    529
    Arne Vajhøj
    Aug 13, 2012
  4. clusardi2k

    Code To Pick A Date From A Calendar

    clusardi2k, Aug 4, 2012, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    135
    Steve W. Jackson
    Aug 4, 2012
  5. Eric Sosman
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    173
    Steve W. Jackson
    Aug 4, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page