stallman and interviewer who can't shut up

[gavino himself]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUibaPTXSHk

[dxf...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 7:29:02 AM UTC+11, gavino himself wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUibaPTXSHk

Misappropriating common and appealing words
such as "free" may be clever marketing but is
certainly not unique.

[gavino himself]

general semantics?
marketing? stallman is promoting ideas...not selling or marketing...
you are misusing the word marketing..
I like openbsd.org

[dxf...@gmail.com]

Thanks to mass marketing the FSF now wields
enormous legal power - power that you inadvertently
gave them.

[a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid]

Enormous legal power? How? From where? Marketing? What are you
talking about?

Andrew.

[gavino himself]

Wow I am a god to hand out power? Can I create an all white usa with no jews now? and all hot women?

[gavino himself]

bsd is actually taking over

[dxf...@gmail.com]

"The FSF acts on all GPL violations reported on
FSF copyrighted code, and we offer assistance to
any other copyright holder who wishes to do the
same."

>
> Andrew.

[Ron Aaron]

It's more the *threat* of lawsuits than actual lawsuits.

And that's why corporations are very leery of using GPLed code, in my
experience. And that's why 8th doesn't use any GPLed libraries or code.

[dxf...@gmail.com]

Well, there was this lawsuit which left none in
doubt as to the FSF's power and preparedness
to use it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation,_Inc._v._Cisco_Systems,_Inc.

[Ron Aaron]

Yes. Once people know you're willing to pull the trigger, you rarely
have to.

[a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid]

Yes, just like any other copyright holder could. This in no way
supports your claim that "thanks to mass marketing the FSF now wields
enormous legal power."

Andrew.

[a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid]

Ron Aaron <ramb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 14/02/2018 17:29, dxf...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 8:26:17 PM UTC+11, a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:
>
>>> Enormous legal power? How? From where? Marketing? What are you
>>> talking about?
>>
>> "The FSF acts on all GPL violations reported on FSF copyrighted
>> code, and we offer assistance to any other copyright holder who
>> wishes to do the same."
>
> It's more the *threat* of lawsuits than actual lawsuits.

Well, quite.

> And that's why corporations are very leery of using GPLed code, in my
> experience.

Not in mine, but I admit I'm in a very different position from you. I
mostly deal with the larger ones who have in-house lawyers who can
tell them that the GPL is nothing to be scared of. GPL'd code is
everywhere, from Android phones to every one of Google's and Amazon's
(and pretty much everyone else's) servers. If corporations are being
very leery I'd love to see what enthusiasm looks like.

Andrew.

[Ron Aaron]

On 14/02/2018 20:00, a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

> Ron Aaron <ramb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> And that's why corporations are very leery of using GPLed code, in my
>> experience.
>
> Not in mine, but I admit I'm in a very different position from you. I
> mostly deal with the larger ones who have in-house lawyers who can
> tell them that the GPL is nothing to be scared of. GPL'd code is
> everywhere, from Android phones to every one of Google's and Amazon's
> (and pretty much everyone else's) servers. If corporations are being
> very leery I'd love to see what enthusiasm looks like.

Leery of using GPLed code as part of their applications, not "using it"
as an external application or run-time linkage (or gcc for example).

I've worked for and with quite a few companies whose legal departments
forbade the devs from using any GPL libraries or code.

[a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid]

Ron Aaron <ramb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 14/02/2018 20:00, a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:
>> Ron Aaron <ramb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> And that's why corporations are very leery of using GPLed code, in my
>>> experience.
>>
>> Not in mine, but I admit I'm in a very different position from you. I
>> mostly deal with the larger ones who have in-house lawyers who can
>> tell them that the GPL is nothing to be scared of. GPL'd code is
>> everywhere, from Android phones to every one of Google's and Amazon's
>> (and pretty much everyone else's) servers. If corporations are being
>> very leery I'd love to see what enthusiasm looks like.
>
> Leery of using GPLed code as part of their applications, not "using it"
> as an external application or run-time linkage (or gcc for example).

What, exactly, do you mean by "as part of their applications"? Of
course they can't use link pure GPL code into their proprietary
applications because the GPL does not allow that. Quite right, too!
But what it does allow makes sense for a lot of corporations,
including the biggest ones. As long as you follow the rules and don't
try to cheat you're fine, and they know that.

> I've worked for and with quite a few companies whose legal
> departments forbade the devs from using any GPL libraries or code.

Andrew.

[Ron Aaron]

On 14/02/2018 20:21, a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

> What, exactly, do you mean by "as part of their applications"?

I thought that was quite clear from context. Taking some GPLed code,
and linking it into their apps.

> Of course they can't use link pure GPL code into their proprietary
> applications because the GPL does not allow that. Quite right, too!

Quite right... why? BSD and many other licenses *do* allow that
specific usage. Are they quite wrong, then?

[hughag...@gmail.com]

I don't think the FSF is very strong.
I noticed that MicroChip's C compiler for the PIC24 is derived from GCC --- but MicroChip doesn't provide the source-code --- that is a GPL violation.

[dxf...@gmail.com]

'any copyright holder' isn't backed by a
'charity' funded by litigation and tax deductible
donations which has (tens of?) millions of
supporters who have literally put their names to
its licencing model.

Do you object as much at 200x meetings as you do when around me?

>
> Andrew.

[dxf...@gmail.com]

The FSF solicits the reporting of gpl violations.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.en.html

[Paul Rubin]

dxf...@gmail.com writes:
> "The FSF acts on all GPL violations reported on FSF copyrighted code,

As opposed to what? Do you expect people to be able to incorporate
dxforth-copyrighted code or 8th-copyrighted code into their proprietary
apps, without you or Ron doing anything about it? If not, why do you
expect something different from the FSF?

[Ron Aaron]

Nobody expects that.

The chief difference between GPL and proprietary licenses is that the
GPL is intended from its very start to be a "viral" license, to force
anyone using it to give their IP away for free. It's an ideological
license, not an IP protection.

[hughag...@gmail.com]

I'm pretty sure that FSF knows who MicroChip is --- MicroChip is an industry leader --- MicroChip is the proverbial 800-pound gorilla.
I think FSF sues people such as you or I who can't afford a lawyer --- FSF doesn't mess with MicroChip who presumably has an on-staff team of lawyers.

On a positive note, FSF does offer assistance to the little guy who is defending a GPL on his software but can't afford a lawyer.
This doesn't really do much good though.
This prevents somebody else from making money from your software --- this doesn't help you make money though ---
you are defending your right to work for free, so winning the battle doesn't give you any monetary prize (that is why you don't want to pay for a lawyer).

All in all, the GPL looks like socialism to me. Why would I want to write software and give it away for free? I do have bills to pay...

My novice-package was written for fun. It wasn't fun though, because I just got attacked for it --- I am unlikely to release public software again...
Alex McDonald spent over 4 years saying that I have: "a serious misunderstanding of how pointers work." He hates my SORT function! So much emotional energy!
The SORT function only took me one day to write --- it is one of the more trivial aspects of the novice-package --- but I get attacked for 4 years!
The ANS-Forth cult acts as if my novice-package has harmed them in some way. Apparently it harms their claim to be the "leading experts" of Forth ---
I don't really see this as being my fault though --- I am not to blame for them claiming to be "leading experts" in Forth when they can't program in Forth.
Why hasn't the ANS-Forth cult written anything comparable to my STRING-STACK.4TH? They are going to put +STRING that uses fixed buffers in Forth-200x.
Stephen Pelc wrote an article in which he bragged about his ignorance of quotations, and this was quoted word-for-word in the quotation RfD.
I wrote rquotations for VFX and SwiftForth that have access to the parent function's local variables despite the HOF having local variables of its own.
Stephen Pelc continues to 100% support the fake quotations that fail to provide this feature. He is imposing his ignorance on all Forth programmers.
It has only been 1/4 century since ANS-Forth became the "Standard" --- they are still struggling to graduate from kindergarten-level programming!
There is really no point in writing software in ANS-Forth --- The ANS-Forth cult hates my novice-package written in ANS-Forth --- they embrace willful ignorance!

[a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid]

Ron Aaron <ramb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 14/02/2018 20:21, a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:
>
>> What, exactly, do you mean by "as part of their applications"?
>
> I thought that was quite clear from context. Taking some GPLed code,
> and linking it into their apps.
>
>> Of course they can't use link pure GPL code into their proprietary
>> applications because the GPL does not allow that. Quite right, too!
>
> Quite right... why?

Because that's what the GPL is designed to do. Free Software means
that users have the right to run, study, redistribute, and modify a
program. The GPL is designed to promote that.

> BSD and many other licenses *do* allow that specific usage. Are
> they quite wrong, then?

No; BSD has different goals. That's up to them.

Andrew.

[a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid]

The FSF is funded by liigation? References, please. And where is
this marketing? Who pays for it? What is this enormous legal power?

> and tax deductible donations which has (tens of?) millions of
> supporters

Are you sure about this?

> who have literally put their names to its licencing model.

> Do you object as much at 200x meetings as you do when around me?

It depends on what's being said. But yes, I sometimes do.

Andrew.

[Anton Ertl]

Ron Aaron <ramb...@gmail.com> writes:
>The chief difference between GPL and proprietary licenses is that the
>GPL is intended from its very start to be a "viral" license, to force
>anyone using it to give their IP away for free.

By contrast, your typical proprietary licence for source code forces
anyone "using" (incorporating) the library to distribute the resulting
software under proprietary terms, so it is "viral" by design. E.g.,
remember (or read up on) the long struggle to get rid of proprietary
code in BSD, so that it finally could be distributed as free software.

>It's an ideological
>license, not an IP protection.

The terms "intellectual property (IP)" and "IP protection" expresses
an ideology that proprietary licences also express, so yes, the GPL is
not intended to provide IP protection in that sense.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2017: http://euro.theforth.net/

[gavino himself]

The important part is
1 if you improve the gnu tool's code, you share it
2 what you build with the gnu tool you dont have to share

jew lawyers like blackduck try and blur this disinction to steal apps esp during aquuizitions when smart white guys built fast awesome code with gnu
but the whites owe nothing
the gnu tool itself is rarely improved
is the app smartly codes in the gnu tool which is value jews want to steal
and they are real bastards because they payout si when u get a ton of venture funding when your shit is taking off and u want the cash to further grwo before competitors, many funded by idea stealing jews come to bear
most of what legal system does is unconstitutional theft
congress makes laws
not courts
when courts interpret law they should be beported or ideally burned or drawn n qurtered for treason

[Rod Pemberton]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:14:43 -0800 (PST)
dxf...@gmail.com wrote:

> Thanks to mass marketing the FSF now wields
> enormous legal power - power that you inadvertently
> gave them.

So, I've listed a bunch of U.S. court cases on copyright law here in
the United States, for anyone who is interested. There are 23
categories further below. I would suggest reading 5, 11, and 18 through
22 at a minimum.

Items 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, below cover derivative works and
modifications. Items 5, 8, 9, 18 through 22, below cover
non-copyrightable material. Items 2, 11, 12, 13, cover Public Domain
material, which is also non-copyrightable. Items 14, 15, 16, 17 below
cover fair-use. Of course, I'm not a lawyer. This is just collected
information.


0) Only the owner of a copyright has the legal right to prepare
derivative works based upon the copyrighted work:
section 106 b. of Copyright Act

1) Trivially "similar" derivative works aren't copyrightable:
Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp
Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp
Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures
Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp.
US Copyright Registration for Derivative Works (Circular 14)

2) Trivial changes to Public Domain works aren't copyrightable:
Walker & Zanger, Inc. v. Paragon Indus

3) A derivative work with major changes that doesn't qualify as a
unique work can't be copyrighted as a whole, but the changes can be
copyrighted separately:
Durham Industries vs. Tomy Corp
Section 103 of Copyright Act (17 USC)

4) Substantial similarity is required for infringement:
Computer Associates v. Altai

5) Portions of a technical standards document which are required to be
used to comply with the technical standard aren't copyrightable:
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co
Computer Associates v. Altai
Baystate v. Bentley
Section 102 b of Copyright Act
"Scènes à faire doctrine"

6) A derivative work must be sufficiently different to prevent
copyright entanglement:
Gracen v. Bradford Exchange

7) Substantially similar works are copyrightable when expression is
limited:
NEC Corp. v Intel Corp.

8) Facts are not copyrightable:
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Svc.

9) Copyright does not protect process, and ideas are not protected by
copyright, but re-expression of ideas is copyrightable:
Baker v. Selden

10) Originality and independent creation is required for copyright:
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Svc.

11) Private documents required to implement public law are Public
Domain:
Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc.

12) Works written by the U.S. government are non-copyrightable, i.e.,
Public Domain:
section 105 of Copyright Act

13) Copying Public Domain material from a copyrighted work is a
constitutional right:
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co
Section 107 6 of Copyright Act

14) Created the United State's right of "fair use":
Folsom v. Marsh

15) Personal use constitutes "fair use":
Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios

16) Defeating "fair use" requires proof of harm, or if widespread,
proof that "fair use" would hurt the market potential of a copyrighted
work:
Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios

17) Reverse engineering is "fair use," sometimes:
Sony v. Connectix
Sega v. Accolade

18) A reverse engineered result only needs to be non-infringing:
Vault v. Quaid
Sega v. Accolade
Nintendo v. Atari
Sony v. Connectix

19) Binary or object code isn't copyrightable or protected by copyright:
Apple Computer v. Franklin Computer

20) Individuals have the right to modify code for their own use:
Lewis Galoob Toys v. Nintendo of America
Vault v. Quaid
Narrell v. Freeman

21) Technical interfaces, e.g., data structure names, data structure
organization or ordering, menu's, etc. aren't copyrightable:
Baystate v. Bentley
Mitel Inc. v. Iqtel
Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade
Lotus v. Borland
Apple Computer v. Microsoft
Synercom v. University Computing

22) System interfaces aren't copyrightable, e.g., ability to execute an
application:
Bateman v. Mnemonics

23) Copyright is to serve the public interest:
Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co

HTH,


Rod Pemberton
--
Ok, millennials. We'll take away your gun rights before age 21, then
we'll take away your car privileges until age 25. Cars kill twice as
many people as guns. If you're not responsible with a guns, we can't
trust you with cars either.

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 17:19:00 -0800 (PST)
gavino himself <jack...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The important part is
> 1 if you improve the gnu tool's code, you share it
> 2 what you build with the gnu tool you dont have to share

The important part is:

a) If you improve the gnu tool's code, you lose your rights to your
changes. This is not an issue if your code isn't used anywhere else,
but is if you wish to retain your rights to it. This can also be an
issue if the same code is available with a different license, e.g.,
that part can be replaced with the GPL'd code, causing license
pollution. These things are not an issue, if GNU controls the original
copyright, as they can be viewed as altruistic. However, it is an
issue if someone other than GNU controls the original GPL'd copyright.
Why? Because, the copyright owner can take /YOUR/ contributed code,
and go commercial with it. They own the original copyright. Your
contributions fall under their copyright, at least under U.S. law ().
GPL is just a license to use the code. So, you've contributed to an
open source project, but now the code is in someone else's hands, is
closed, and has been commercialized. You worked for free and had your
code "stolen" from you. This has already happened with a few notable
GPL'd projects, usually prior to initial public release of the code. I
don't recall the name of the project, but there was a major one a few
years ago. They were using a code management system to allow many
developers. However, this resulted in no one having enough code to make
a complete copy of the original GPL'd code base, after the original
copyright holder took the project private. The owner then formed a
company and raised venture capital.

b) You're not supposed to keep modifications of GPL'd code private.
I.e., GPL code is "free as in beer", meaning that you've agreed to share
it freely with others, even though it's your property, and it cost you
time and money. You're giving it away to others, for others to enjoy.

[foxaudio...@gmail.com]

Ya that's why the USA has all those branches of government. Cuz it was a stupid system.
We all know that politicians are honest and trustworthy. History has proven that to all of us for centuries.

OMG

[dxf...@gmail.com]

It was already given.

> And where is
> this marketing? Who pays for it? What is this enormous legal power?
>
> > and tax deductible donations which has (tens of?) millions of
> > supporters
>
> Are you sure about this?

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

>
> > who have literally put their names to its licencing model.
>
> > Do you object as much at 200x meetings as you do when around me?
>
> It depends on what's being said. But yes, I sometimes do.

Do you also accuse TC members of being liars and
call for boycotts against them as you have done
with me? Or perhaps that would be counter-
productive for you.

Andrew Haley wrote:

"Eventually, we all have to make a decision about
whether to ignore a poster altogether or try to
reply in a way that sets an example. However, I'm
not going to back down if I'm convinced someone
is lying. [...] And, maybe, it's time to stop
responding to some posters."

I didn't trash your reputation. You did it to
yourself. No amount of trolling me will restore it. Try an apology instead.

>
> Andrew.

[Paul Rubin]

dxf...@gmail.com writes:
>> > and tax deductible donations which has (tens of?) millions of
>> > supporters
>> Are you sure about this?
> Do you have evidence to the contrary?

I can tell you as a former FSF staff programmer that at least back in my
day, we didn't have millions of donors. I'm not even sure we had
dozens. We did have more than zero.

Of course we have tens of millions of *users*. Whether those users
count as "supporters" depends on what you mean by "supporters" and
anyway is anybody's guess. Not very many contribute any financial
support though.

[gavino himself]

party right
party wrong

if you improve the gnu tool, share that code
if you write code to implement an app using gnu tool, nope dont have to share
thats your code and anyone else can use gnu tool and write thier own

simple

jew lawyers want to ignore this
and claim they can steal your app code as if you owe it
fuck them!

[dxf...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 2:24:06 PM UTC+11, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> ...

> Ok, millennials. We'll take away your gun rights before age 21, then
> we'll take away your car privileges until age 25. Cars kill twice as
> many people as guns. If you're not responsible with a guns, we can't
> trust you with cars either.

Insensitive timing aside, there is no comparison.
Were cars an antiquated legal provision with
little demonstrable benefit to present day
society, then the large number of deaths
attributed to them would also need to be
questioned. When you live in society you have
a responsibility to it. It's not all about you.

[gavino himself]

how about no more drug to kid from corrupt gov trained shrinks?
how about conceal carry all over?
every classroom teacher have gun
end public school
end all gun control

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

He's decided to troll this forum; unless it's someone else forging his
id. He used to be constructive on the assembler/OS NGs.


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 21:48:25 -0800 (PST)
dxf...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 2:24:06 PM UTC+11, Rod Pemberton
> wrote:

> > Ok, millennials. We'll take away your gun rights before age 21,
> > then we'll take away your car privileges until age 25. Cars kill
> > twice as many people as guns. If you're not responsible with a
> > guns, we can't trust you with cars either.
>

Off-topic.

You're commenting on people's sig's instead of on Forth. Why?

> Insensitive timing aside,

What? We have over 20 years of millennials shooting up schools in the
U.S., starting with Columbine, and my timing is insensitive two
decades later? WTF is wrong with you? This conversation is way
overdue. ...

> there is no comparison.

Yes, there is. Most car deaths are attributed to reckless behavior and
murder. How is that any different than gun deaths? It's only
different because people refer to car deaths as unfortunate "accidents".
They're indifferent, like you, because no one has pointed it out to
them.

> Were cars an antiquated legal provision

Antiquated? This false claim is highly dismissive and totally
subjective. How would police officers, security guards, and military,
enforce their own right to life in a deadly situation without the
"antiquated legal provision" of gun ownership? ... We've already seen
what happens to U.K., Australia, and Canada without guns: rape of women
and children increases dramatically, and police forces eventually
re-arm themselves with guns. Are you actually claiming that rape is a
better outcome than murder? I would hope not ...

> with little demonstrable benefit to present day society

According to whom? Aren't you totally dismissing law enforcement,
military, and the realities of high crime urban areas in the U.S.?
Aren't you also dismissing the lawful activities like target shooting,
home defense, and hunting? The last one is still necessary for the
yearly survival of millions of U.S. citizens, e.g., deer, hogs, bear,
moose, etc. Who kills your food? You do understand that's usually
done by a farmer with a gun, yes? Even large scale farms still use
guns en-masse, although some use other methods, e.g., stun guns,
gassed, slit throat.

> then the large number of deaths attributed to them would also need to
> be questioned.

So, you're claiming that because cars have a benefit to society, we
don't need to be concerned with their high death toll? That's
literally the dumbest claim I've ever heard in my long life so far.
What is the point of air bags and safety belts? We do need to be
concerned with the death toll of cars, when they exceed guns by 100%.
And, yes, guns have a tremendous benefit to society too, as mentioned
above, whether you grasp that or not.

> When you live in society you have a responsibility
> to it. It's not all about you.

So, you're saying that there is no such thing as individual rights?
You're placing the rights of society above those of the individual? ...
That was done in socialist, fascist, and communist societies. How did
that turn out?


Rod Pemberton
--

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:29:48 -0000 (UTC)
"Kerr-Mudd,John" <nots...@invalid.org> wrote:

> He's decided to troll this forum;

I wasn't trolling anyone. That retarded dipshit keeps commenting
off-topic on people's signature blocks. And, your nuisance insults are
beginning to piss me off as well.


Rod Pemberton
--

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:29:48 -0000 (UTC)
"Kerr-Mudd,John" <nots...@invalid.org> wrote:

> He's decided to troll this forum; unless it's someone else forging
> his id. He used to be constructive on the assembler/OS NGs.
>
>

Well, my best guess is that you're a troll from Liverpool England
(perhaps London), who posts mostly through Berlin Germany. These seem
to be some of your aliases linked to your catch phrases:

Kerr Mudd-John
Stanley Daniel de Liver
Clive Lister

"Bah, and indeed, Humbug!"
"It's a money /life balance."


Rod Pemberton
--

[hughag...@gmail.com]

Rod Pemberton doesn't know anything about assembly language.
He just posts nonsense in an effort to get a response from somebody correcting him, then he turns the thread into an idiotic debate,
then he hijacks the thread with off-topic political nonsense.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.asm.x86/hugh$20frank%7Csort:date/comp.lang.asm.x86/IVtSmnc2ddw/CH3O3IUjBAAJ

On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 1:52:33 PM UTC-7, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 07:58:13 -0500
> Terje Mathisen <terje.m...@nospicedham.tmsw.no> wrote:
>
> > Rod Pemberton wrote:
>
> > > IIRC, in general, the x86 doesn't guarantee flags are preserved
> > > through more than one instructions. I.e., you can only be assured
> > > that they're valid for the next instruction, unless you save them
> > > with a 'pushf'.
> >
> > This is of course wrong!
>
> Not "in general," it's not. It is in specific constructed situations as
> you demonstrated.
>
> The vast majority of x86 instructions which preserve flags are
> instructions which are not that useful. They're basically comprised of
> data movement, register loads, looping, and size conversion
> instructions. Most of the instructions that modify values, which
> you'll need or that a compiler will generate, will be arithmetic,
> binary, test, or shift operations, all of which modify flags. And,
> many other instructions are marked as having the results for specific
> flags as being undefined, even if the instruction doesn't use that
> flag. This means you can't expect that flag to be preserved.
> (I constructed lists of these for my own personal use.)
>
> The 6502 is what Hugh was likely thinking about. Preserving flags
> through long sequences was "easy" on the 6502. The x86 is not the same
> as the 6502 which didn't touch flags the instruction didn't use. The
> 6502 also didn't change many flags per instruction, unlike the x86
> which tends to set or change most of them at once.
>
>
> Rod Pemberton

[a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid]

dxf...@gmail.com wrote:
.
>> >> >> >> you are misusing the word marketing..
>> >> >> >> I like openbsd.org
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks to mass marketing the FSF now wields enormous legal power -
>> >> >> > power that you inadvertently gave them.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Enormous legal power? How? From where? Marketing? What are you
>> >> >> talking about?
>> >> >
>> >> > "The FSF acts on all GPL violations reported on FSF copyrighted
>> >> > code, and we offer assistance to any other copyright holder who
>> >> > wishes to do the same."
>> >>
>> >> Yes, just like any other copyright holder could. This in no way
>> >> supports your claim that "thanks to mass marketing the FSF now wields
>> >> enormous legal power."
>> >
>> > 'any copyright holder' isn't backed by a 'charity' funded by
>> > litigation
>>
>> The FSF is funded by liigation? References, please.
>
> It was already given.

No, it was not. I'm not aware of the FSF profiting from any
litigation. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, it just means that
I'm not aware of it. That's why I asked.

>> And where is
>> this marketing? Who pays for it? What is this enormous legal power?
>>
>> > and tax deductible donations which has (tens of?) millions of
>> > supporters
>>
>> Are you sure about this?
>
> Do you have evidence to the contrary?

I don't have to. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed
without evidence.

>> > who have literally put their names to its licencing model.
>>
>> > Do you object as much at 200x meetings as you do when around me?
>>
>> It depends on what's being said. But yes, I sometimes do.
>
> Do you also accuse TC members of being liars and call for boycotts
> against them as you have done with me?

No.

> Or perhaps that would be counter- productive for you.

> Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> "Eventually, we all have to make a decision about whether to ignore
> a poster altogether or try to reply in a way that sets an
> example. However, I'm not going to back down if I'm convinced
> someone is lying. [...] And, maybe, it's time to stop responding to
> some posters."
>
> I didn't trash your reputation. You did it to yourself. No amount of
> trolling me will restore it. Try an apology instead.

For what should I apologize?

Andrew.

[a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid]

Rod Pemberton <NoE...@trraxvfeqa.prg> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 17:19:00 -0800 (PST)
> gavino himself <jack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The important part is
>> 1 if you improve the gnu tool's code, you share it
>> 2 what you build with the gnu tool you dont have to share
>
> The important part is:
>
> a) If you improve the gnu tool's code, you lose your rights to your
> changes. This is not an issue if your code isn't used anywhere
> else, but is if you wish to retain your rights to it. This can also
> be an issue if the same code is available with a different license,
> e.g., that part can be replaced with the GPL'd code, causing license
> pollution. These things are not an issue, if GNU controls the
> original copyright, as they can be viewed as altruistic. However,
> it is an issue if someone other than GNU controls the original GPL'd
> copyright. Why? Because, the copyright owner can take /YOUR/
> contributed code, and go commercial with it. They own the original
> copyright. Your contributions fall under their copyright, at least
> under U.S. law ().

I don't think that's quite right. Consider recording a new version of
a song: if you release that result you owe the original songwriter,
but you still own the copyright of your own version. I don't believe
that software is any different.

> b) You're not supposed to keep modifications of GPL'd code private.

Why not? If you and your friend hack your own version of Program X,
no-one can force you to give it away. However, if you do give it to
anyone else, you must supply source and you may not restrict them from
passing it on.

Andrew.

[a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid]

a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

> dxf...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Do you also accuse TC members of being liars and call for boycotts
>> against them as you have done with me?
>
> No.

I'll expand on this s bit. I don't believe that I have ever accused
you of being a liar or of calling for a boycott against you. The
paragraph you quoted below, even shorn of its context, doesn't imply
that.

>> Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>> "Eventually, we all have to make a decision about whether to ignore
>> a poster altogether or try to reply in a way that sets an
>> example. However, I'm not going to back down if I'm convinced
>> someone is lying. [...] And, maybe, it's time to stop responding to
>> some posters."

Andrew.

[Mihail Maksimov]

Until recently, to earn money by the open source you need to be a genius of the Richard Stallman type.
A useful software that can be created alone has already been released. The administrative command method
of uniting efforts is extremely inefficient and there is no place for Forth.
I propose an evolutionary way of small upgrades through personal shops.
https://github.com/mak4444/LTCFileShopPlugin
In this case, authorship is blurred. The author's rights becomes unnecessary.
The rule is single, if the source is open, then there are no prohibitions on its use.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 00:36:16 GMT, Rod Pemberton <NoE...@trraxvfeqa.prg>
wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 21:48:25 -0800 (PST)
> dxf...@gmail.com wrote:
>

[]

>
> Off-topic.
>
> You're commenting on people's sig's instead of on Forth. Why?
>

[yet more off topic gun apologist stuff removed]
Very poor. 3/10.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 04:35:18 GMT, Rod Pemberton <NoE...@trraxvfeqa.prg>
wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:29:48 -0000 (UTC)
> "Kerr-Mudd,John" <nots...@invalid.org> wrote:
>
>> He's decided to troll this forum; unless it's someone else forging
>> his id. He used to be constructive on the assembler/OS NGs.
>>
>>
>
> Well, my best guess is that you're a troll from Liverpool England

No sig sep.

>
> Rod Pemberton

Hah! Now you're stalking. I've put you on the naughty step.

[a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid]

Mihail Maksimov <fpa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Until recently, to earn money by the open source you need to be a
> genius of the Richard Stallman type.

Or me. Or any of my colleagues.

Andrew.

[a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid]

a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:
> dxf...@gmail.com wrote:
> .

>>>
>>> > and tax deductible donations which has (tens of?) millions of
>>> > supporters
>>>
>>> Are you sure about this?
>>
>> Do you have evidence to the contrary?
>
> I don't have to. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed
> without evidence.

I just looked it up: the FSF has 4500 dues-paying members.

Andrew.

[Mark Wills]

On Monday, 19 February 2018 11:11:46 UTC, Mihail Maksimov wrote:
> Until recently, to earn money by the open source you need to be a genius of the Richard Stallman type.

Define "recently". Red Hat seem to be doing okay.

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 21:13:25 -0800
Paul Rubin <no.e...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> I can tell you as a former FSF staff programmer

Ahhhh , so you are the Paul Rubin whose name appears on a number of man
pages like rm , touch , wc , gawk , etc. I had been wondering about that.

[dxf...@gmail.com]

Interesting to get a comment from an 'insider'.
It's public record legal action was taken against
Cisco and settled with a 'donation' to the FSF
for an undisclosed amount. The inevitable
question is why the secrecy and whether there
have been more settlements like it behind closed
doors.

Many 'do good' organizations tend to be vehicles
for the advancement of the person who set it up.
They rely on the goodwill of the public and
volunteers to do the work but it's the guy at
the top who is pulling all the strings. I'm
simply wary of them.

I personally don't use any licence. I'm not a
business requiring legal protection, nor a
hobbyist prepared to defend his copyright and
impositions in a court of law. It's a burden I
don't need, nor wish to impose on users assuming
any. I prefer my hobby contributions to be free
- as in the bird. I couldn't begin to say who all
my sources have been so best give back to the
commonwealth of knowledge that gave without
asking anything from me.

[dxf...@gmail.com]

On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 9:28:33 PM UTC+11, a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:
> a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:
> > dxf...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> Do you also accuse TC members of being liars and call for boycotts
> >> against them as you have done with me?
> >
> > No.
>
> I'll expand on this s bit. I don't believe that I have ever accused
> you of being a liar or of calling for a boycott against you. The
> paragraph you quoted below, even shorn of its context, doesn't imply
> that.

Context and intent was clear. So confident
were you thinking you had me bagged and tagged
as a liar, you signed off with this:

>> Andrew,
>> Honorary Witch-Finder General

Unfortunately for you it backfired. Instead of
learning from the sorry episode and moving on,
here you are snapping at my heels - and by no
means the first time. Such childish behaviour
from a Forth Standard committee member charged
with Forth's future. How times have changed.

[Paul Rubin]

dxf...@gmail.com writes:
> It's public record legal action was taken against Cisco and settled
> with a 'donation' to the FSF for an undisclosed amount. The inevitable
> question is why the secrecy

Probably because Cisco preferred it that way. I don't have any inside
knowledge but I'd make a sporting bet that if Cisco wanted the terms to
be public, the FSF would have gone along with it without much fuss.

> and whether there have been more settlements like it behind closed
> doors.

There have been a number of such settlements described in the press and
maybe on the FSF web site. Again this stuff is long after I worked
there and I don't have any private or inside info. But from what I
understand, the usual terms are that the company (Cisco or whatever)
appoints a compliance person within the company, who makes sure that any
GPL infringements get fixed, and that person works with the FSF

> but it's the guy at the top who is pulling all the strings. I'm simply
> wary of them.

I'm smiling at the picture of RMS as the guy at the top pulling strings.
That's a good one and he might get a kick out of it. I'm going to guess
that you've never met him ;-).

> I personally don't use any licence. I'm not a business requiring legal
> protection, nor a hobbyist prepared to defend his copyright and
> impositions in a court of law.

How noble.

[Mihail Maksimov]

a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:
>> Until recently, to earn money by the open source you need to be a
>> genius of the Richard Stallman type.

>Or me. Or any of my colleagues.

I do not know how you do it. I assume the use of open source in order to
not to do the same thing many times. It is to improve redistribution
labor. Then not only for the realization of outstanding qualities.
But it is also to rescue highly skilled workers from low-skilled job.
I.e it is to attract the main bulk of programmers. And it is to attract more
people to programming.

dxf...@gmail.com wrote:
> I prefer my hobby contributions to be free

> as in the bird.

If you do not earn by what you want to do then
you will have to earn by what you do not want.

[a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid]

dxf...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 9:28:33 PM UTC+11, a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:
>> a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:
>> > dxf...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >> Do you also accuse TC members of being liars and call for boycotts
>> >> against them as you have done with me?
>> >
>> > No.
>>
>> I'll expand on this s bit. I don't believe that I have ever accused
>> you of being a liar or of calling for a boycott against you. The
>> paragraph you quoted below, even shorn of its context, doesn't imply
>> that.
>
> Context and intent was clear.

Actually, no, the subject had moved on by then and the conversation
was in more general terms, as was clear from the context. And you
will note that I haven't boycotted you.

> So confident were you thinking you had me bagged and tagged as a
> liar, you signed off with this:
>
>>> Andrew,
>>> Honorary Witch-Finder General

Maybe I should use that as a .sig.

> Unfortunately for you it backfired. Instead of learning from the
> sorry episode and moving on, here you are snapping at my heels - and
> by no means the first time.

This is a public newsgroup. If you post something unsourced and
unlikely, I might reply. If you trash talk about the FSF, I'm sure to
reply. I'd do the same to anyone.

> Such childish behaviour from a Forth Standard committee member
> charged with Forth's future. How times have changed.

LOL!

I note that this is still no more than a smoke screen to avoid having
to justify your claim that the "enormously powerful" FSF is funded by
litigation and donations from millions of supporters. There has been
very little litigation around the GPL, and the FSF runs a pretty lean
organization. I doubt very much that its compliance work turns a
profit, but I haven't seen the accounts. I guess it's possible. The
FSF's goal is to encourage parties to comply with the GPL, and that's
what usually happens.

Andrew.

[Alex]

In the past, these conversations were of the form "See how the mighty
have fallen!" based on some provable & evidenced transgression. Today it
is sufficient to declare "See how I have dragged down the mighty!" based
on no evidence beyond the hurt feelings caused by disagreement.

--
Alex

[dxf...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 7:33:08 PM UTC+11, Paul Rubin wrote:
> dxf...@gmail.com writes:
> > It's public record legal action was taken against Cisco and settled
> > with a 'donation' to the FSF for an undisclosed amount. The inevitable
> > question is why the secrecy
>
> Probably because Cisco preferred it that way. I don't have any inside
> knowledge but I'd make a sporting bet that if Cisco wanted the terms to
> be public, the FSF would have gone along with it without much fuss.
>
> > and whether there have been more settlements like it behind closed
> > doors.
>
> There have been a number of such settlements described in the press and
> maybe on the FSF web site. Again this stuff is long after I worked
> there and I don't have any private or inside info. But from what I
> understand, the usual terms are that the company (Cisco or whatever)
> appoints a compliance person within the company, who makes sure that any
> GPL infringements get fixed, and that person works with the FSF
>
> > but it's the guy at the top who is pulling all the strings. I'm simply
> > wary of them.
>
> I'm smiling at the picture of RMS as the guy at the top pulling strings.
> That's a good one and he might get a kick out of it. I'm going to guess
> that you've never met him ;-).

He convinced millions to sign up to his idea of
'what should be' along with his prescriptions and
regulations. Freedom is what you had.

[Paul Rubin]

dxf...@gmail.com writes:
> He convinced millions to sign up to his idea of 'what should be' along
> with his prescriptions and regulations. Freedom is what you had.

Lol, this gets weirder every day. Are you really saying that freedom is
letting Jeff Bezos take your work, turn it into proprietary products and
make billions from it without crediting you or paying you a cent? I
think I'll stick with RMS's prescription of what you seem to think is
servitude, where I'm the one who decides if Bezos can make my stuff
proprietary. I'm less doctrinaire than RMS is, as RMS would never let
Bezos do such a thing, while I might allow it. But if I do allow it, I
at least expect to get paid for it.

But Bezos loves you for your freedom! I hope you're enjoying it, and
are wearing it with pride. It must be a kick, working for nothing to
make the richest guy in the world even richer. If I do that kind of
work, I prefer the type of pride that I can put in the bank.

[dxf...@gmail.com]

It's a hobby not a business. I don't understand
what I would gain by introducing fear and threat
into it.

[Paul Rubin]

dxf...@gmail.com writes:
> It's a hobby not a business. I don't understand what I would gain by
> introducing fear and threat into it.

I think you're saying don't worry about licensing because you don't
produce anything valuable enough for other people to want to cash in on
it without compensating you. Others of us out here do have to face the
issue (look at the number of billion-dollar corporations built around
GNU/Linux). Why do you want the people who wrote that code to
voluntarily become serfs for those companies, by not using the GPL? I
still don't understand that part.

[gavino himself]

how about we end public school
end gun free zones
end pensions they werent earned
lower gov spending 99% and deregulate
end foriegn aid
allow mass produced housing
people making nice big mgm grand hotels so all live comfy
moms not having kids unless they pay for em
no welfare
no gov school
no fract reserve banking
no fed
no gov finance
gov must collect cash b4 spend cash
no bonds
union free train and monorail private
ban regulations
regulation is theft
democracy is theft

[Anton Ertl]

Paul Rubin <no.e...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>dxf...@gmail.com writes:
>> He convinced millions to sign up to his idea of 'what should be' along
>> with his prescriptions and regulations. Freedom is what you had.
>
>Lol, this gets weirder every day. Are you really saying that freedom is
>letting Jeff Bezos take your work, turn it into proprietary products and
>make billions from it without crediting you or paying you a cent?

The only problem that RMS has with that is "turn it into proprietary
products", i.e., if Jeff Bezos distributes (modified versions of) your
work, but denies the recipients the four freedoms that you provided.

And it seems to me that Jeff Bezos found a way to make money that,
among other things, involves free software wwithout denying the four
freedoms to the recipients of the software. That he does it by
exploiting his workers is something worth criticizing, though.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2017: http://euro.theforth.net/

[gavino himself]

gun apologist? fuck off
guns ave lives
if there were no gun free zones, which are unconstitutional, less kids would die as good guys would shoot the bad guy fast
conceal carry areas liek missouri have 1/10th gun death of uk
fuck off gun grabber
it will never work
bring guns back to personal ownership in eu an oz etc.
also sp gov shrinks from giving children brain drugs, since when kid said nah im not taking it then get huge chemical swings cusing mass hootings
also end welfre so single moms disappear
kid need dad to kik their ass a bit so they dont get spergy neet

[gavino himself]

google runs free software
facebook too its php
appel runs version of bsd, or mach + bsduserland or something
atlassian is LAMP
gridgain is java which si eivl but so called free but I wonder
sprak is free
hadoop free
all makign shit tons of money
zendesk and appian free
linux runs supercomptuers so huge research $
free software apps are making megatons of moeny wtf u talking about
microsoft and oracle have been obsolete for some time
only democratic anarachy of regulated economy keep them from being stomped out by competition

[gavino himself]

bezos is a jew who somehow doesnt get ratfucked by teamsters for having trucks every white guy has been tryign to do for 100 years, while jew back teamsters stop cmoetition
bezos then get massive tax $$ from psot office to deliver shit
but hek fre software apps buitl with free software tools are yours
you only need to share code if you improve the tool
code written with the tool is yours
black duck and other jew lawyers try n pry peoples app code from them using jew anti white legal system but thats wrong and those judges should be disbarred
regulation is theft
democracy is fascism
democracy si theft
deregulate and lower gov spending 99%
mass produced housign and throium atomci pwoer alone would let everyone live in mgm grand level of luxury
instead we have 100s millions of welafre jobs liek public school
only school should be engineering, and medical under it
psychology is all bs as is non engineering
end fed
let citizens loan to one another
loan funds
finance si scam as is
ad money scma let apple fb google counterfiet money
jsut print money not earned
scam
and ad money non taxable with current accounting tis an expense
as big as regualted market real estate scam
real estae and prive school expensive and scare due to regulation killing competition
should cost $40 to educate a kid
net acceess all u need
now for university engineering yes need lab but all private school make this cheap as spread
education now is scam hugely overated
tenure a joke
end all that
compettive research tanks
end foriegn aid esp to israel
charge other country for defens
echarge fll price for emdical tek now 1% charged fuck that
usa does 75% med tek innovation and gives usa citizen funded defense for half world not paid properly
end welfare
ban private law firm and unions
cancel all penions they were not earned
tax real esate and otehr un earend income not income from work or production
cancel patent law
cancel licensing

[Ron Aaron]

On 23/02/2018 14:17, gavino himself wrote:

> bezos is a jew who ...

No. I'm a Jew. Bezos is an Episcopalian. You are a dickhead.

[gavino himself]

nah hez a joooo

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 04:24:49 GMT, gavino himself <jack...@gmail.com>

Or post something about Forth? you know you want to.

[foxaudio...@gmail.com]

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 8:43:14 AM UTC-5, Ron Aaron wrote:

lol

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 11:30:53 GMT, gavino himself <jack...@gmail.com>
wrote:

No caps, bad spelling, bad grammar, possibly posting whilst drunk/drugged
up. 2/10.

[gavino himself]

spark.apache.org or ignite.apache.org or prevayler.org in FORTH
thats the 40trillion $ idea
logic grid

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 17:12:21 GMT, gavino himself <jack...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 10:48:02 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd,John
wrote:

[]

>> Or post something about Forth? you know you want to.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
>
> spark.apache.org or ignite.apache.org or prevayler.org in FORTH
> thats the 40trillion $ idea
> logic grid
>

Ok, show me your code. You Joke.

[gavino himself]

This isn't 6th grade english class...its the net!
:)

[gavino himself]

Only pussies have hyphenated names #1
#2 if I could write that code I wouldn't be posting here...fuckface
Id be ina 4 on 1 orgy with 4 tens!

[dxf...@gmail.com]

You mistake me for the FSF. I'm not telling you
to do anything. That would be terrible.

[Rod Pemberton]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:59:57 -0000 (UTC)
"Kerr-Mudd,John" <nots...@invalid.org> wrote:

> Hah! Now you're stalking. I've put you on the naughty step.
>

Just who is following me around group to group to harass and insult
me? (You.). So, t seems you're already on the naughty list, and
haven't been off it in decades, apparently.


Rod Pemberton
--
feedback loop: Russian aggression -> World complains -> Russian
paranoia -> Russian threats -> repeat

[Idiocy Parrot]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 21:07:00 -0800 (PST)
hughag...@gmail.com wrote:

> Rod Pemberton doesn't know anything about assembly language.
> He just posts nonsense in an effort to get a response from somebody
> correcting him, then he turns the thread into an idiotic debate, then
> he hijacks the thread with off-topic political nonsense.

Hugh Aquilar doesn't know anything about Forth language.
He just posts nonsense in an effort to get a response from somebody
correcting him, then he turns the thread into an idiotic debate, then
he hijacks the thread with off-topic political nonsense.

Idiocy Parrot
--
bawk!