Microsoft Code Has No Bugs (that Microsoft cares about)
Tore Lund
Tenie Remmel wrote:
>
> Jim Neil wrote:
> >
> > Interesting. I don't run MY company that way. Then again, I'm not
> > making billions of dollars per year. What's wrong with this picture?
>
> Simply that you ARE just like Microsoft in another way -- you have
> been trying to prevent competition. What you really should do is to
> be BETTER than the competition, not attempt to prevent it.
>
> Haven't you tried to squash several free TERSE clones? I wrote a TERSE
> clone, and Tylisha C. Andersen and David Deganchi also have clones.
>
> Not that TERSE isn't a very good product. Why otherwise would several
> people have cloned it? It is very nice (and better than the clones I
> have seen, IMHO, being significantly faster than all three).
You may have a point here, Tenie. I think Jim should allow competition,
but he should not necessarily give up his right to royalties on TERSE
clones. It is more or less taken for granted that language designers
should work for free, but there is no reason why this state of affairs
should continue. What normally happens is that they work in universities
or Bell Labs or similar institutions, so that they don't have to worry
about money. Lone developers like Jim might have to charge something for
their product, and I think that's only fair.
If the TERSE clones actually are *clones*, then I think that Jim should
be able to demand a royalty on distributed copies. It is always possible
to bypass this demand by making another type of "assembler with HLL
syntax". If they use the TERSE syntax, this means they think Jim has
done a good job, and they should give him credit (money) for it.
> Even Microsoft does not try to get rid of free assemblers, C-compilers,
> word processors, operating systems (ie Linux), etc. as far as I know.
Well, how could they? They did not invent assembler nor C nor word
processing. I don't know about Linux, but I would doubt that it has
borrowed any significant ideas from MS operating systems. The problem
with Microsoft is precisely that they have not come up with a single new
idea, yet they behave as if they had invented computing.
> Learn to live with competition.
If you make a cover version of a hit song, you have to pay royalties. If
you want to *compete*, you write your own song.
Tore
--
Tore Lund <tl...@sn.no>
Tore Lund
Tenie Remmel wrote:
>
> Tore Lund wrote:
> >
> > If the TERSE clones actually are *clones*, then I think that Jim should
> > be able to demand a royalty on distributed copies. It is always possible
> > to bypass this demand by making another type of "assembler with HLL
> > syntax". If they use the TERSE syntax, this means they think Jim has
> > done a good job, and they should give him credit (money) for it.
>
> *most* of the TERSE syntax, and have extensions (particularly NEGA)
> that TERSE doesn't have, I consider thm different enough not to be
> violating any copyright. I guess if there were enough extensions
> it would be different enough.
I don't know these clones. But for the sake of the argument, let's say
that we are talking about *clones*, literally.
> Also what would the royalty on a free product be? Two of them were
> going to be free.
>
> I assume then, they could pay Jim Neil say 20% of the profits, or
> even 20% of the gross sales, which would work out to be nothing.
The point is, one is not allowed to copy and distribute other
intellectual or artistic products without the permission of the
copyright owner. What makes language design a special case?
Ed Parry
Tore Lund wrote:
>> >
>> > If the TERSE clones actually are *clones*, then I think that Jim should
>> > be able to demand a royalty on distributed copies. It is always possible
>> > to bypass this demand by making another type of "assembler with HLL
>> > syntax". If they use the TERSE syntax, this means they think Jim has
>> > done a good job, and they should give him credit (money) for it.
Tenie Remmell wrote:
>> You're right except that they are not quite clones. They support
>> *most* of the TERSE syntax, and have extensions (particularly NEGA)
>> that TERSE doesn't have, I consider thm different enough not to be
>> violating any copyright. I guess if there were enough extensions
>> it would be different enough.
TL replied:
>I don't know these clones. But for the sake of the argument, let's say
>that we are talking about *clones*, literally.
TR:
>> Also what would the royalty on a free product be? Two of them were
>> going to be free.
>> I assume then, they could pay Jim Neil say 20% of the profits, or
>> even 20% of the gross sales, which would work out to be nothing.
TL:
>The point is, one is not allowed to copy and distribute other
>intellectual or artistic products without the permission of the
>copyright owner. What makes language design a special case?
I'll agree here. TERSE's syntax is what makes it special. It is NOT
standard, and therefore I woudl say this qualify's as it's own HLL
compiler or pre processor of sorts.
I would like to see those that are into trying to clone TERSE come up
with some other stuff (for TR's FREELIB) or perhaps an assembler of
their own.
Ep
Ed Parry - Southern California, USA
Email: au...@lafn.org
Ed Parry
Jim Neil wrote:
>>
>> Interesting. I don't run MY company that way. Then again, I'm not
>> making billions of dollars per year. What's wrong with this picture?
Tenie Remmell replied:
>Simply that you ARE just like Microsoft in another way -- you have
>been trying to prevent competition. What you really should do is to
>be BETTER than the competition, not attempt to prevent it.
Umm, what does this have to do with Bill gates policy on bug fixes?
Jim is RIGHT on bug fixes given my personal experience with him &
TERSE.
>Haven't you tried to squash several free TERSE clones? I wrote a TERSE
>clone, and Tylisha C. Andersen and David Deganchi also have clones.
Being a programmer yourself, you should understand about outright
plagerism of your product. Jim obviously does not have the resources
of a large company such as MS, and TERSE is copyrighted.
Also, you review TERSE in your PTT001 magazine and then came out with
a clone for it? Isn't that a conflict of interest as well as morally
incorrect? IE: It might appear that you requested a review copy to
clone it rather than review it.
>Even Microsoft does not try to get rid of free assemblers, C-compilers,
>word processors, operating systems (ie Linux), etc. as far as I know.
Yes, but how many times have they been taken to court for similiar
instances themselves? IE: Double Space ring a bell. They can afford
latency, small guys like you, I and Jim cannot.
>Learn to live with competition.
If you need projects so badly, I would like to see some advanced
support in the FREELIB project you put out. Advanced graphic support
for ALL popular modes, sound card and PC speaker WAV (etc) support, a
microsecond resolution timer, all mode sprite routines, game writing
routines, full serial support, windows access support if possible,
graphic file loading (PCX, GIF, JPG), etc.
I support JN on this one. Ep
Jerzy Tarasiuk
>>>>> Ed Parry <au...@lafn.org> writes:
> I'll agree here. TERSE's syntax is what makes it special. It is NOT
Namely, what elements of the syntax?
> standard, and therefore I woudl say this qualify's as it's own HLL
So why not to make it a standard?
Chris Burian
In article <5dtb6i$e...@zook.lafn.org>, Ed Parry <au...@lafn.org> wrote:
>
>I would like to see those that are into trying to clone TERSE come up
>with some other stuff (for TR's FREELIB) or perhaps an assembler of
>their own.
I would like to see those trying to clone TERSE to come up with something
with less cryptic syntax. :)
Chris
Eric J. Korpela
In article <5dtabp$e...@zook.lafn.org>, Ed Parry <au...@lafn.org> wrote:
>
>>Haven't you tried to squash several free TERSE clones? I wrote a TERSE
>>clone, and Tylisha C. Andersen and David Deganchi also have clones.
>
>Being a programmer yourself, you should understand about outright
>plagerism of your product. Jim obviously does not have the resources
>of a large company such as MS, and TERSE is copyrighted.
Plagerism of a product, as applied to copyrights, refers to copying
the code, NOT to producing a competing, compatible product. If I want
to sit down and write a terse clone, there's not a damn thing you or
Jim can do about it. (And frankly, writing terse is a trivial effort.
I wouldn't know wheter to write a yacc grammar for it or just write
the whole think in awk. Heck, maybe I'll write terse2c, then we'd
really have a portable assembly language.)
>Also, you review TERSE in your PTT001 magazine and then came out with
>a clone for it? Isn't that a conflict of interest as well as morally
>incorrect? IE: It might appear that you requested a review copy to
>clone it rather than review it.
If it's so easy to clone that it's not worth the purchase price, then
clone it.
>Yes, but how many times have they been taken to court for similiar
>instances themselves? IE: Double Space ring a bell. They can afford
>latency, small guys like you, I and Jim cannot.
Double space violated several patents held by Stac. Terse is not patented,
and I doubt any of the techniques it uses are patentable. Patents
are inherently different that copyrights.
Eric
--
Eric Korpela | An object at rest can never be
kor...@ssl.berkeley.edu | stopped.
<a href="http://www.cs.indiana.edu/finger/mofo.ssl.berkeley.edu/korpela/w">
Click here for more info.</a>
Hasdi Rodzmann Hashim
Chris Burian (cbu...@ll.mit.edu) wrote:
: In article <5dtb6i$e...@zook.lafn.org>, Ed Parry <au...@lafn.org> wrote:
: >
: >I would like to see those that are into trying to clone TERSE come up
: >with some other stuff (for TR's FREELIB) or perhaps an assembler of
: >their own.
: I would like to see those trying to clone TERSE to come up with something
: with less cryptic syntax. :)
That would C. :) :) :)
Oh no. Not now, Scott. Please, I beg you. no. no! NOoooooo!!!!!
Hasdi
Ed Parry
Tenie Remmel <tj...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
Hi TR!
Altho I replied to most of this already via email, I'll post a short
reply here as well.
Ed Parry wrote:
>> If you need projects so badly, I would like to see some advanced
>> support in the FREELIB project you put out. Advanced graphic support
>> for ALL popular modes, sound card and PC speaker WAV (etc) support, a
TR:
>Sound card support is going to be included in version 4.0, which
>probably will be released in 2-3 months.
Good! I have yet to find any decent sound libs at a reasonable price.
I DID find a great example of DMA WAV playing via the sound blaster
written in QuickBASIC. Best 8 bit/11hz mono SB->WAV player I have
found so far in ANY language. Well written, clear, etc. next step -
convert it to asm!
>Graphics support for all possible modes is a possible addition,
>but it would be driver-based as that is the only way to prevent
>either huge size or very slow speed.
You could offer that as a seperate module then perhaps?
ASMLIB by Doug Herr is not overlay large (160k or so) and handles all
video modes, bit blitting (transparent or otherwsie), PCX loading in
ANY supported video mode, primitives, text windowing, full mouse
support (text & graphic modes), primitives and standard lib stuff
(INT2STR, LONG2STR, etc.) & even some complex math type handling
routines
>Remember, though, FREELIB is not a game programming library.
This is something that would be in great demand I suspect. Also,
educational app's can be greatly enhanced by sound and graphcis
support. IE: graphics and sound are not just for games anymore.
Also, I find this interesting coming from you - I always sort of
thougth of you as primarily a game type programmer.
EP>> a microsecond resolution timer
>A microsecond resolution timer is a possible addition, but remember
>that these things can only time accurately up to 55 milliseconds.
Umm, this is not accurate. IE: The PIT counts down from 65536 (0)
18.2x times per second. A bit of math and voila! Max resolution can
be at least 1/1,192,737 or so. Check out ztimer23.zip on SIMTEL as
well. A true microsecond res timer.
Also, BIOS offers the WAIT command, which has a resolution of 976
microseconds - or ~one millisecond - you knew this tho. You use this
call in your TETRIS clone code as I recall. ONE timer tick is 55ms
(1/18.2).
>> all mode sprite routines, game writing
>> routines, full serial support, windows access support if possible,
>> graphic file loading (PCX, GIF, JPG), etc.
>Again, FREELIB is not a game programming library. It was intended
>for writing serious programs.
Like what? I would say that most any serious program today can benefit
from sound, graphic and mouse support.
>I could add graphics file loading, but JPG is awfully complicated.
This is what I have found out as well. STILL, be REAL nice to get a
set of DOS base net programs that could overlay and handle anything
oour favorite Windows net programs could do. PCX loading is good
though.
I enjoy the Snippets and Freelib code.
BTW, I still stand by my original statement. Jim Neil stands behind
his product 100%, helps with questions near instantly via email, etc.
Besides, the program is copyrighted and I think he makes part of his
living from it. It seems wrong to try to take that away from him,
especially given the questionable legal and moral issues surrounding
it. The x86 gang's time would/could be MUCH better spent on other
useful projects.
I would MUCH rather see a x86 assembler project (MASM compatible -
sorry NASM), then move onto to getting just a huge set of VERY useul
library routuines - standard lib stuff like UCR and Freelib offer, but
also graphics, sound, game routines (sprite's and tiling for example),
serial IO handling, mouse handling for all modes, micro timer,
windowing, etc. The catch here - one stop shopping. Maybe even a
concerted effort of everyone writing free lib's and code for the x86
into one, all serving library or set of library's?
We could set up a huge list of wanted routines, and dole them out to
individuals that volunteered, then combine them when done into
thematic libraries.
Ed Parry
cbu...@ll.mit.edu (Chris Burian) wrote:
>In article <5dtb6i$e...@zook.lafn.org>, Ed Parry <au...@lafn.org> wrote:
>>
>>I would like to see those that are into trying to clone TERSE come up
>>with some other stuff (for TR's FREELIB) or perhaps an assembler of
>>their own.
>I would like to see those trying to clone TERSE to come up with something
>with less cryptic syntax. :)
>Chris
I'd still love to see some other a/l related projects as mentioned
above.
I still believe it is wrong to clone a commerical copyrighted program
such as TERSE. IEL: Why not come up with their OWN assembler
pre-compiler with their own syntax, etc. if so inclined?
Ed Parry
wrote:
>>>>>> Ed Parry <au...@lafn.org> writes:
>> I'll agree here. TERSE's syntax is what makes it special. It is NOT
>JT>Namely, what elements of the syntax?
I would say any part of the specific TERSE syntax - such as symbols
that stand for certain commands for example.
EP>> standard, and therefore I woudl say this qualify's as it's own
EP>>HLL
>JT>So why not to make it a standard?
Because it is copyrighted & Jim Neil chooses to NOT make it so. GIF
did the same thing (for a while) as did SEA ARC's and ZIP still does
it. IE: You must pay the fee to offer ZIP handling in your source.
Just because it is a programming language related program, does not
negate it's protection by copyright.
Daniel R. Haney
[plagiarism, copyright != patent, TERSE]
In practical terms, I don't think it's likely that one
can PATENT a computer language or a data format, in spite
of efforts by Ashton-Tate with dBase or SEA and their ARC
compression format. The same must follow for TERSE.
The implementation of a comp. lang. translator/compiler/interpreter
and sales thereof is the primary issue: you can't acquire another's
work and sell it as your own.
> If it's so easy to clone that it's not worth the purchase price, then
> clone it.
ditto. yeah. "Me, too."
I note that the desirability of a clone gives substance to the
desirability of the original. Imitation, flattery, and all that.
Can anyone clone Terse(tm) in an hour or three? Damn few.
What does $50 of programmer time buy? $50 to Jim Neil buys you a
finished debugged product with bound documentation and a nice cheat
sheet. But if one STILL wanted to clone it, the complete Backus-Naur
Formal grammar is included in the manual appendices so someone could
readily YACC themselves into epiphany, perhaps even make a useful
implementation for a microcontroller, the VAX, or the i960.
Hmmn. Not a bad idea.
-daniel r. haney
--
Vladislav Kaipetsky
Tenie Remmel <tj...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
> Ed Parry wrote:
> > a microsecond resolution timer
>
> A microsecond resolution timer is a possible addition, but remember
> that these things can only time accurately up to 55 milliseconds.
Why so? If you account for the value stored in the timer latch,
then your precision jumps up to a 1/65535 of a ~1/18.2 sec, which is
about ~1/1,193,000 second --> exactly what Ed was asking for.
But please do not misunderstand, nobody has the right to _demand_
anything of the *FREE* lib.
Ed could contribute such a code to the FREELIB himself :)
sincerely,
Vlad
Jerzy Tarasiuk
>>>>> Ed Parry <au...@lafn.org> writes:
>>>>>>> Ed Parry <au...@lafn.org> writes:
>>> I'll agree here. TERSE's syntax is what makes it special. It is NOT
>JT> Namely, what elements of the syntax?
> I would say any part of the specific TERSE syntax - such as symbols
> that stand for certain commands for example.
I suppose you are wrong. Many elements of TERSE syntax were
in other programming languages, therefore they cannot be made
proprietary - an attempt to do it would be stealth!
>JT> So why not to make it a standard?
> Because it is copyrighted & Jim Neil chooses to NOT make it so. GIF
> did the same thing (for a while) as did SEA ARC's and ZIP still does
> it. IE: You must pay the fee to offer ZIP handling in your source.
True? Info-ZIP handles ZIP format, is available in source
form, and is FREE! Are you purposely misinforming people?
Ed Parry
j...@fuw.edu.pl (Jerzy Tarasiuk) wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ed Parry <au...@lafn.org> writes:
>>>> I'll agree here. TERSE's syntax is what makes it special. It is NOT
>>JT> Namely, what elements of the syntax?
>> I would say any part of the specific TERSE syntax - such as symbols
>> that stand for certain commands for example.
JT:
>I suppose you are wrong. Many elements of TERSE syntax were
>in other programming languages, therefore they cannot be made
>proprietary - an attempt to do it would be stealth!
Long as you only SUPPOSE I am wrong. 8-) What liufe is made of - I
think I am right, you think I am wrong. I can live with that - can
you?
>>JT> So why not to make it a standard?
>> Because it is copyrighted & Jim Neil chooses to NOT make it so. GIF
>> did the same thing (for a while) as did SEA ARC's and ZIP still does
>> it. IE: You must pay the fee to offer ZIP handling in your source.
JT:
>True? Info-ZIP handles ZIP format, is available in source
>form, and is FREE! Are you purposely misinforming people?
Yep, that is me. The evil misinfo minion of darkness. My goal is to
take over everyones mind thru mis information and then send them off
to work camps in the 4th dimension.
Easy enough to settle. I'll send off a note to the folks at PKZIP and
ask if their ZIP handling source code is free for all, or protected by
copyright. I'll post a follow up once they reply. *I* still believe it
is copyrighted and they sell the rights to use their ZIP based
libraries and source.
I can see that you REALLY do like me, right JT? Ep
William Burrow
Ed Parry (au...@lafn.org) wrote:
: I would say any part of the specific TERSE syntax - such as symbols
: that stand for certain commands for example.
: EP>> standard, and therefore I woudl say this qualify's as it's own
: EP>>HLL
: >JT>So why not to make it a standard?
: Because it is copyrighted & Jim Neil chooses to NOT make it so. GIF
: did the same thing (for a while) as did SEA ARC's and ZIP still does
: it. IE: You must pay the fee to offer ZIP handling in your source.
You are incredibly confused. Info-Zip can handle Zip files easily
without royalty. GIF is a patent issue, not a copyright issue.
: Just because it is a programming language related program, does not
: negate it's protection by copyright.
Copyright is not carte blanche to stop anyone from expressing your ideas,
only the implementation. Apple and Microsoft fought over the GUI concept
for nearly a decade. Apple got a trash can out of it.
Terse is somewhat unique, in that most people in the past seemed to have
created languages that they hoped would spread and have other people
write compilers for. Some languages (Ada in the past and Java today)
have certification procedures that must be satisfied before the name of
the language can (could) be applied to the product. I don't really know
of any language where the language designer desired to prevent others
from writing a compiler for the language.
Case studies would be interesting (more interesting than USENET
lawyering<tm>).
--
William Burrow -- Fredericton Area Network, New Brunswick, Canada
Copyright 1997 William Burrow
Scott Nudds
Tore Lund (tl...@sn.no) wrote:
: The point is, one is not allowed to copy and distribute other
: intellectual or artistic products without the permission of the
: copyright owner. What makes language design a special case?
Who does Tore Lund nominate to run the Mind police?
Tore Lund
Scott, you're not answering my question, and you're not even funny. No
one complains about Mind police when it comes to protecting other forms
of intellectual or artistic achievements. What makes language design a
special case?
The point is: language design in general takes time and effort which
must be paid for somehow. What normally happens is that tax payers'
money or business profits are funneled to some institution like Bell
Labs or the Zurich Polytechnic. This makes it possible for a handful of
lucky designers to make a language "for free". This system also puts
severe limitations on the number of people who can afford to design
computer languages.
Present laws and practices in this area may not be perfect or even
adequate to regulate this type of property right. But whatever their
precise shape I think they should uphold the central principle that
language designers, LIKE ANYONE ELSE, have a right to be compensated for
their efforts when other people benefit from their products. The fact
that some people do it "for free" is an elaborate hoax that need not
blind us the realities of this question.
Jim Neil
In article <85597040...@fan1.fan.nb.ca>,
aa...@fan.nb.ca (William Burrow) wrote:
[8<]
> Terse is somewhat unique, in that most people in the past seemed to have
> created languages that they hoped would spread and have other people
> write compilers for. Some languages (Ada in the past and Java today)
> have certification procedures that must be satisfied before the name of
> the language can (could) be applied to the product. I don't really know
> of any language where the language designer desired to prevent others
> from writing a compiler for the language.
> William Burrow
Thanks you for seeing this VERY important difference. I specifically
don't want anyone else to write a TERSE compiler. It is my individual
EXPRESSION and I hold the copyright to it. Maintaining the "purity" of
TERSE is important for my customers. The "extensions" to TERSE in the
"clones" totally ignore the philosophy behind the selection of the
TERSE operators. Of course I expect nothing less from people apparently
incapable of original thought.
Jim Neil ___ ___/ ____/ ___ / ____/ ____/
Creator of The / / / / / /
TERSE Programming Language / ___/ ___/ ____ / ___/
http://www.terse.com / / / \ / /
jim-...@digital.net __/ ______/ __/ __\ ______/ ______/ TM
ISBN: 0-9652660-0-1
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Ed Parry
"Vladislav Kaipetsky" <vl...@tarzan.cr.cyco.com> wrote:
> But please do not misunderstand, nobody has the right to _demand_
>anything of the *FREE* lib.
Not demanding - merely requesting! TR is a talented programmer, but
she seems to be content with duplicating programs already in
existance. (Tetris & Terse for two examples). he rlibnrary could
become top notch if she added some of the goodies I have suggested.
Grahcis, sound, microtimer.
> Ed could contribute such a code to the FREELIB himself :)
She's yet to ask. REAL easy to poll timer0 :
WASM source:
Nano PROC NEAR ;delay in nano secs/65535 count = 1/18.2x 'tick'
;returns nano count in AX
Cli ;int's off
Sub AL, AL ;0
Out 43h, AL ;latch timer0.
In AL, 40h ;read LSB
Mov AH, AL ;ah = LSB of timer0.
In AL, 40h ;read MSB
Xchg AL, AH ;swap/fix em - AX = timer
Sti ;int's back on
Ret
ENDP
Only problem I am still having is handling wrap around. Since the res
is exceptionally high, I found that an EQUATE test would not work. It
HAS to be conditional. I HAVE some more source to study, but this is
the general polling idea and an exceptionally resolute timer (much
greater than even micro seconds).
BTW, this routine can double as a very decent psuedo random WORD
generator.
Jerzy Tarasiuk
>>>>> Ed Parry <au...@lafn.org> writes:
>> Ed could contribute such a code to the FREELIB himself :)
> She's yet to ask. REAL easy to poll timer0 :
> ;returns nano count in AX
> Cli ;int's off
> Sub AL, AL ;0
> Out 43h, AL ;latch timer0.
> In AL, 40h ;read LSB
> Mov AH, AL ;ah = LSB of timer0.
> In AL, 40h ;read MSB
> Xchg AL, AH ;swap/fix em - AX = timer
> Sti ;int's back on
> Ret
> ENDP
> Only problem I am still having is handling wrap around. Since the res
> is exceptionally high, I found that an EQUATE test would not work. It
> HAS to be conditional. I HAVE some more source to study, but this is
> the general polling idea and an exceptionally resolute timer (much
> greater than even micro seconds).
In fact, its resolution is slightly better than microsecond,
not nanosecond. Note CPU clock has few nanosecond period in
decent CPUs and it is not possible to get better resolution
than a clock tick. The timer has 1.19 MHz clock only...
And note your "time" is counting down. Also note the timer
needs some initialization - otherwise it counts by 2. Also
cannot be sure timer is fast enough - read port 61h before
reading the latched value or the "in" can read garbage.
Handling delay - assuming your proc is used:
usDelay proc ; CX=required delay
not cx
call Nano
xchg ax,dx
inc dx ; to avoid immediate 0 from the following "sub"
next: call Nano
sub ax,dx
cmp ax,cx
ja next
neg cx ; may restore CX... AX,DX are lost
ret
endp
Jerzy Tarasiuk
>>>>> Ed Parry <au...@lafn.org> writes:
> j...@fuw.edu.pl (Jerzy Tarasiuk) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ed Parry <au...@lafn.org> writes:
>> form, and is FREE! Are you purposely misinforming people?
> ask if their ZIP handling source code is free for all, or protected by
We weren't talking about _source_ code, but about _ZIP format_.
Joe
HI there...
I am looking for a similar procedure or function (Pascal or C
language) for counting microseconds, If you can help drop me
a line.
Thanks in advance
Joe
Jim Neil
In article <330737...@mail.idt.net>, Tenie Remmel <tj...@mail.idt.net> says:
>
>Jim Neil wrote:
>> Thanks you for seeing this VERY important difference. I specifically
>> don't want anyone else to write a TERSE compiler. It is my individual
>> EXPRESSION and I hold the copyright to it. Maintaining the "purity" of
>> TERSE is important for my customers. The "extensions" to TERSE in the
>> "clones" totally ignore the philosophy behind the selection of the
>> TERSE operators. Of course I expect nothing less from people apparently
>> incapable of original thought.
>
>but let's just take a look at the NEGA extensions, please say exactly
>what is wrong with them:
[8<]
Like I said... You (and your "friends") have missed the whole
philosophy behind the selection of the operators in TERSE. Just like
I'm sure K&R are unhappy with all the warts that have been grafted
onto their language, just like DaVinchi would be unhappy if you were
to paint a pair of glasses on the Monalisa. It is an artistic
EXPRESSION and I wouldn't expect YOU to be able to see the BEAUTY in
it. You *do* see the VALUE in it, just like the jewel thief fails to
see the beauty in the jewels he/she steals but rather sees only their
value.
>And if I am incapable of original thought, how do you explain FREELIB?
>And what about Programming Tips & Tricks Magazine? Such things take
>a lot of original thought, IMHO.
I've never looked at freelib so I will not comment on it. PT&T is
NOT an original idea, it *is* however your expression of an old idea.
And, yes I give you credit for it (and I always have). It is YOU who
fail to give proper credit when credit is due.
>Are you sexist? Your flames are only directed at women. And you say
>that we are incapable of original thought.
First, these are not flames. They are an attempt to prevent YOU
from stealing the fruits of my labor. As far as sex goes, YOU were
the one that brought that into the picture. Hell, I thought you were
a MAN until you came out of the closet back in September, remember?
BTW, I'm NOT the first to make the mistake of thinking you were a
man. The mistake is a statistically "correct" mistake to make. Also,
you have an "unusual" name (at least here in America), so that makes
the error even simpler to understand. If your name were Mary or Jane
I'm sure no one would call you a MAN. The reason my "flames" (as you
call them) are directed only at a woman (not women) is because YOU are
the ONLY one trying to steal from me.
I see that you are trying to change the topic here by calling me a
sexist. In a debate, you should stay ON TOPIC.
William Burrow
Jim Neil (jim-...@digital.net) wrote:
: Thanks you for seeing this VERY important difference. I specifically
: don't want anyone else to write a TERSE compiler. It is my individual
: EXPRESSION and I hold the copyright to it. Maintaining the "purity" of
: TERSE is important for my customers. The "extensions" to TERSE in the
: "clones" totally ignore the philosophy behind the selection of the
: TERSE operators. Of course I expect nothing less from people apparently
: incapable of original thought.
Actually, because TERSE is not very wide spread, I don't see why the fans
of a free language similar to yours don't develop one that is completely
different to it, as you have already suggested. Such a language, while
incompatible with yours, will attract buyers of your TERSE product if:
a) the free product is any good and shows the advantages of TERSE-like syntax;
b) the buyer likes to spend money or requires support (there are both
types of user) or possibly wants to try your product to see if it is better.
It is unfortunate that sometimes incompatibility between similar software
must arise, but protectionism tends to promote it (not that that doesn't
happen elsewhere).
Jim Neil
In article <85611671...@fan1.fan.nb.ca>, aa...@fan.nb.ca (William Burrow) says:
[8<]
>Actually, because TERSE is not very wide spread, I don't see why the fans
>of a free language similar to yours don't develop one that is completely
>different to it, as you have already suggested. Such a language, while
>incompatible with yours, will attract buyers of your TERSE product if:
>
>a) the free product is any good and shows the advantages of TERSE-like syntax;
>b) the buyer likes to spend money or requires support (there are both
>types of user) or possibly wants to try your product to see if it is better.
>William Burrow
Agreed. They should creat their OWN expression of a Symbolic
Assembly Language. Perhaps they feel that "mine" is the "only good
one". I know I've felt this way. Gee, I sure wish I'd written the
Beatle song "A Day In The Life". What a great song! Why didn't *I*
think of it?! Too, bad for me. They did, I didn't. So, I haven't
given up or stolen theirs, I have written songs of my OWN. I use
their work as *inspiration*, I don't steal it.
Norman L. DeForest
: >>> I'll agree here. TERSE's syntax is what makes it special. It is NOT
: >JT> Namely, what elements of the syntax?
: > that stand for certain commands for example.
: I suppose you are wrong. Many elements of TERSE syntax were
: in other programming languages, therefore they cannot be made
: proprietary - an attempt to do it would be stealth!
-----------------------------=======
Only if they did it secretly and use techniques to hide it from detection.
Unless you meant "theft"?
: >JT> So why not to make it a standard?
: > Because it is copyrighted & Jim Neil chooses to NOT make it so. GIF
: > did the same thing (for a while) as did SEA ARC's and ZIP still does
===========
Those writing programmes that can read and/or create *.gif files still
have to pay royalties on their software. Those creating software to
process *.gif files didn't have a temporary problem "for a while."
They have a problem because the *patent* (not copyright) holder didn't
initially enforce the patent rights. If they had done so, *.gif files
would not have become a standard. Only after *.gif files became a
defacto standard on the Internet and lots of software get written to
handle those files did the patent holder come forward and say "Hey, wait
a minute. You have to pay royalties on that." That's one of the factors
that led to the new proposed graphics standard <whose initials escape me
at the moment but will probably be remembered as soon as I send this>.
: > it. IE: You must pay the fee to offer ZIP handling in your source.
: True? Info-ZIP handles ZIP format, is available in source
: form, and is FREE! Are you purposely misinforming people?
The algorithms can be used without royalties. The original code can't.
Norman De Forest
af...@chebucto.ns.ca
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html
(A Speech Friendly Site)
.........................................................................
Q. Which is the greater problem in the world today, ignorance or apathy?
A. I don't know and I couldn't care less.
.........................................................................
Steven Huang
In article <8560313...@dejanews.com> Jim Neil <jim-...@digital.net> writes:
>In article <85597040...@fan1.fan.nb.ca>,
> aa...@fan.nb.ca (William Burrow) wrote:
>[8<]
>> Terse is somewhat unique, in that most people in the past seemed to have
>> created languages that they hoped would spread and have other people
>> write compilers for. Some languages (Ada in the past and Java today)
>> have certification procedures that must be satisfied before the name of
>> the language can (could) be applied to the product. I don't really know
>> of any language where the language designer desired to prevent others
>> from writing a compiler for the language.
>[8<]
> Thanks you for seeing this VERY important difference. I specifically
>don't want anyone else to write a TERSE compiler. It is my individual
>EXPRESSION and I hold the copyright to it. Maintaining the "purity" of
>TERSE is important for my customers. The "extensions" to TERSE in the
>"clones" totally ignore the philosophy behind the selection of the
>TERSE operators. Of course I expect nothing less from people apparently
>incapable of original thought.
I have a couple of questions, some from a strictly legal perspective,
some from a personal perspective.
What rights are given a creator of a language?
<legal>
a. Does it include the right to control who is allowed to write a
compiler? (Entirely separate from the right to *name* the
compiler, mind you.)
b. Does it include the right to control (demand royalty, for
instance) what is written in that language?
c. Does it include the right to control compatible or incompatible
extensions to the language? (TASM duplicated even MASM bugs.)
d. Does it include the right to withdraw the language from use?
(Can you suddenly say TERSE cannot be used in development from
this day on?)
</legal>
<personal>
a. Do you think you have the right to control who writes a compatible
compiler, even if it doesn't use the name TERSE?
b. Do you believe you have rights to (even though you may have waived
it) code written by others in TERSE?
c. Do you think you have the right to prevent additions to TERSE, even
if it's made in another name? Interesting question becomes, how
much addition will make it a new language altogether?
d. Do you believe you have the right, given that you created TERSE, to
withdraw all rights of use granted (such as refunding compiler
customers)? This would probably cost your customers far more than
they paid for the compiler.
</personal>
Where do you draw the line? Suffice to say, if the answer to B or D
(legally) are true, I'd be afraid to use your language.
Jim Neil
In article <5ea08r$o...@hnssysb.hns.com>, sth...@hns.com (Steven Huang) says:
[8<]
>I have a couple of questions, some from a strictly legal perspective,
>some from a personal perspective.
>
>What rights are given a creator of a language?
>
><legal>
I am NOT a lawyer, so I will not give you any legal advice.
></legal>
>
><personal>
>a. Do you think you have the right to control who writes a compatible
> compiler, even if it doesn't use the name TERSE?
All derivative works are the property of the owner of the
copyright. Computer programs (and manuals) are protected
as literary works and are afforded the same protection. I
DO NOT claim protection of the idea of a Symbolic Assembly
Language, or algorithms used in the compiler. I DO claim
my rightful ownership of my EXPERESSION of *THE* Symbolic
Assembly Language known as TERSE(tm).
>b. Do you believe you have rights to (even though you may have waived
> it) code written by others in TERSE?
Of course not. Any more then the author of a book can control
who (or how) it is read, or a composer can control who (or how)
a song is enjoied.
>c. Do you think you have the right to prevent additions to TERSE, even
> if it's made in another name? Interesting question becomes, how
> much addition will make it a new language altogether?
All derivative works are the property of the owner of the
copyright. Computer programs (and manuals) are protected
as literary works and are afforded the same protection. I
DO NOT claim protection of the idea of a Symbolic Assembly
Language, or algorithms used in the compiler. How much do
you need to change a song? "My Sweet Lord" was found to
violate the copyright of "He's So Fine". How much do you
have to add to "Gone With The Wind" to make it an original
work? Of course morally, if you derive the new work from
the original the answer is clear. If it looks like a duck
and it walks like a duck, it *is* a duck. Certinaly, if
this new language claims to be a "clone" or 99% compatable
the answer is clear. You can't tack an epilog on the end
of "Gone With The Wind" and call it your own, no matter how
long that epilog may be.
>d. Do you believe you have the right, given that you created TERSE, to
> withdraw all rights of use granted (such as refunding compiler
> customers)? This would probably cost your customers far more than
> they paid for the compiler.
Of course not. Once you get the compiler, you have the right
to use it forever so long as you don't violate the license
agreement. The programs they write are THEIR property. TERSE
is royality free.
></personal>
>
>Where do you draw the line? Suffice to say, if the answer to B or D
>(legally) are true, I'd be afraid to use your language.
I'd be afraid to use it too if this were the case, but of course
this is NOT the case, so use TERSE without fear.
BEVERNON
> Thanks you for seeing this VERY important difference. I specifically
>don't want anyone else to write a TERSE compiler. It is my individual
>EXPRESSION and I hold the copyright to it. Maintaining the "purity" of
>TERSE is important for my customers. The "extensions" to TERSE in the
>"clones" totally ignore the philosophy behind the selection of the
>TERSE operators. Of course I expect nothing less from people apparently
>incapable of original thought.
Express (your emotions) all you want, but the truth of the matter is you
only have copyrights over your concrete expression; i.e. the compiler you
have written, and not the concept behind it. You may also be able to
copyright the manuals, etc, but you'll be hard pressed to enforce a
copyright on the mnemonics, operators, syntax etc.
You wouldn't want to get into trouble on this one, so you really ought to
check your standing with an intellectual property lawyer, and save your
energy for improving your language... Sad as it might be, language
definitions aren't protected by copyright. Course I may be wrong, (as a
matter of fact, I'm often wrong), but I don't think so... ;-)
As for your customers, if your implementation is technically superior to
the 'clones' you will retain them. Otherwise, you will lose them.
Brad
BEVERNON
Steven Huang
In article <5eabkg$k93$1...@ddi2.digital.net> jim-...@digital.net (Jim Neil) writes:
>In article <5ea08r$o...@hnssysb.hns.com>, sth...@hns.com (Steven Huang) says:
[Don't get me wrong - this isn't an attack on TERSE or you, but some
nagging doubts about the implications of concepts you raise.]
>>a. Do you think you have the right to control who writes a compatible
>> compiler, even if it doesn't use the name TERSE?
> All derivative works are the property of the owner of the
> copyright. Computer programs (and manuals) are protected
> as literary works and are afforded the same protection. I
> DO NOT claim protection of the idea of a Symbolic Assembly
> Language, or algorithms used in the compiler. I DO claim
> my rightful ownership of my EXPERESSION of *THE* Symbolic
> Assembly Language known as TERSE(tm).
What about the expression of the idea of assembly language implemented
in the Microsoft assembler? Do you think they could prevent something
like Turbo Assembler from using its syntax? Clearly, TASM "stole" market
share from MASM, and I'd suspect this is far greater in scale than TERSE's
clones ever will hurt TERSE.
What if I design a language with only an operator "+"? Most computer
languages would be supersets of my language, *especially* those
provably designed after mine. Are they thus "derivative works"? This
may sound extreme an example, but where's the line?
I haven't had a close look at TERSE, but I'd expect that you chose
familiar symbols for operations, like "+" for addition, "-" for
subtraction. If so, isn't it fairly common for somebody who is
trying for the same goal as TERSE was choose the same symbols? If
so, does that mean *parts* of TERSE are not protected by copyright?
For example, right this minute, if I wanted a more readable assembler,
I might design (C-ishly):
AX = BX ; MOV AX, BX
AX ?= CX ; CMP AX, CX
AX += BX ; ADD AX, BX
AX <<= 1 ; SHL AX, 1
trivially. With more thought would I have come up with something that
looks maybe 40% like TERSE?
[...]
>>c. Do you think you have the right to prevent additions to TERSE, even
>> if it's made in another name? Interesting question becomes, how
>> much addition will make it a new language altogether?
> All derivative works are the property of the owner of the
> copyright. Computer programs (and manuals) are protected
> as literary works and are afforded the same protection. I
> DO NOT claim protection of the idea of a Symbolic Assembly
> Language, or algorithms used in the compiler. How much do
> you need to change a song? "My Sweet Lord" was found to
> violate the copyright of "He's So Fine". How much do you
> have to add to "Gone With The Wind" to make it an original
> work? Of course morally, if you derive the new work from
> the original the answer is clear. If it looks like a duck
> and it walks like a duck, it *is* a duck. Certinaly, if
> this new language claims to be a "clone" or 99% compatable
> the answer is clear. You can't tack an epilog on the end
> of "Gone With The Wind" and call it your own, no matter how
> long that epilog may be.
Again, the MASM-TASM question. There are potentially many ways TASM
could've approached the 80x86 assembly language problem, but Borland
chose a Microsoft-compatible one. I don't think Microsoft ever gave
them any flak about it, so I'm not sure your stand is sound in court.
Another example would be Intel and clones. Could Intel copyright the
opcodes of the x86, which is surely an original creation and arguably
a language in itself? Could Microsoft copyright its Windows API?
>>d. Do you believe you have the right, given that you created TERSE, to
>> withdraw all rights of use granted (such as refunding compiler
>> customers)? This would probably cost your customers far more than
>> they paid for the compiler.
> Of course not. Once you get the compiler, you have the right
> to use it forever so long as you don't violate the license
> agreement. The programs they write are THEIR property. TERSE
> is royality free.
Outside the scope of TERSE, many language software are shipped only
with a license to *use* it, and does not convey ownership.
Problem is, if a judge/jury is to decide that you own certain rights
to the TERSE language like those you claim, I'm not sure they can
stop exactly where you propose they do. I *think* that if they grant
you the right to control compilers/extensions to TERSE, the right to
control something written in TERSE (whether you waive it or not) may
come with it. For that reason, the entire package may be denied you.
For example, IIRC, fonts are not protected by copyright. The logic
was, if fonts were controllable, then the words written in those fonts
can also be controlled by the copyright owner. (You may never be able
to publish a single word against rich men!) In that light, the rights
of the people who had to draw the fonts are sacrificed for the public
good.
>>Where do you draw the line? Suffice to say, if the answer to B or D
>>(legally) are true, I'd be afraid to use your language.
> I'd be afraid to use it too if this were the case, but of course
>this is NOT the case, so use TERSE without fear.
Could be paranoia, but cases like the GIF patent are scary. The legal
system doesn't always work the way we think it does. I'm personally
not interested in either TERSE or its clones, because I haven't had to
write a lot of x86 assembly for a while, but if what you believe turns
out to be the norm, I see opportunity for abuse. IOW, I'm not
disturbed by TERSE, but by the possibility that somebody can create
and control a computer language.
Ed Parry
Tenie Remmel <tj...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>And if I am incapable of original thought, how do you explain FREELIB?
>And what about Programming Tips & Tricks Magazine? Such things take
>a lot of original thought, IMHO.
Hi TR!
Off subject a bit., so feel free to tak this to a new subject header
in the x86 NG.
Did you sit down and write all those routine in Freelib by scratch?
They APPEAR to be a standard set of C based funtions and routines not
truly designed directly with a/l in mind.
For example:
1) Why are you pushing parameters instead of apssing them in
registers per norm for a a/l library? PUSHing param greatly slows down
and bulks the code, njot to mention make the routine cleans up thr
stack when exiting.
2) The names of most of the routines are all from C based libraries
apparently.
3) Didn't you have alot of help with alot of the routines, or am I
mistaken? I seem to recall several places in your docs and code where
you credit others for their routine contributions.
I am not saying you deserve credit, but I am wondering if this is
truly a fully original idea & project? I am fairly decent at digging
ou source code, and alot of the code in your Freelin is readily
available on the net already. It is nice that you put it all together,
but I am highly suspicious that you sat down and wrote it allf rom
scratch.
>Are you sexist? Your flames are only directed at women. And you say
>that we are incapable of original thought.
Oh, my wife KNOWS I am sexist, so do not feel bad. All men are
chauvinst pigs and all strong willed women ar obviously gay.
Actually, the turh is that there are not many female a/l level
programmers in the world, so it might seem like your getting alot of
heat of late. Then again, if I rattle the cage, I generally better
expect some fallout.
Ed Parry
j...@fuw.edu.pl (Jerzy Tarasiuk) wrote:
EP:
>> Nano PROC NEAR ;delay in nano secs/65535 count = 1/18.2x 'tick'
>> ;returns nano count in AX
>> Cli ;int's off
>> Sub AL, AL ;0
>> Out 43h, AL ;latch timer0.
>> In AL, 40h ;read LSB
>> Mov AH, AL ;ah = LSB of timer0.
>> In AL, 40h ;read MSB
>> Xchg AL, AH ;swap/fix em - AX = timer
>> Sti ;int's back on
>> Ret
>> ENDP
>> Only problem I am still having is handling wrap around. Since the res
>> is exceptionally high, I found that an EQUATE test would not work. It
>> HAS to be conditional. I HAVE some more source to study, but this is
>> the general polling idea and an exceptionally resolute timer (much
>> greater than even micro seconds).
JT:
>In fact, its resolution is slightly better than microsecond,
>not nanosecond. Note CPU clock has few nanosecond period in
Sorry, just did not know what to call it. IE: I knew it was far
greater res than micro and beynd that, I am not familair with the
breakdown. Micro is 1/10,000th of a second and this is over
1/millionith. Now I realized that THAT res would be not be useful,
because some 'ticks' at that res would be need to do things like make
the CALL, return, etc.
>decent CPUs and it is not possible to get better resolution
>than a clock tick. The timer has 1.19 MHz clock only...
>And note your "time" is counting down. Also note the timer
>needs some initialization - otherwise it counts by 2. Also
>cannot be sure timer is fast enough - read port 61h before
>reading the latched value or the "in" can read garbage.
Even by two's is enough, but I think I would agree that I would prefer
it reading by one's just for the sake of completeness.
>Handling delay - assuming your proc is used:
>usDelay proc ; CX=required delay
> not cx
> call Nano
> xchg ax,dx
> inc dx ; to avoid immediate 0 from the following "sub"
>next: call Nano
> sub ax,dx
> cmp ax,cx
> ja next
> neg cx ; may restore CX... AX,DX are lost
> ret
> endp
Thanx. I've saved it and will chck it out I hacve gotten several
replies but have yet to break down and get into the code yet.
In the case above, would it handle roll over? This has been MY biggest
problem. Socme I cannot test for equate, I need to test for
conditional. I have had some suggestions for doing this, just not
tried them all yet.
Ocne I get one that works fine, I'd be glad to contribute it to
snippets and/or the x86's collection of source.
Thanks for the reply, Ep
Ed Parry
Tenie Remmel <tj...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>> I've never looked at freelib so I will not comment on it. PT&T is
>> NOT an original idea, it *is* however your expression of an old idea.
>> And, yes I give you credit for it (and I always have). It is YOU who
>> fail to give proper credit when credit is due.
>If you mean the PT&T snafu you must have missed the PUBLIC posting
>of the Errata statement on this and other newsgroups.
I THINK he meant that the idea of an electronic programming magazne is
not original (done before) - IE: ASMMAG for example.
>I have never heard of any significant sized company try to protect
>their "rights" the way you are. They hire their own lawyers, too.
>Do you think 1,000 big companies and their lawyers would have
>overlooked something that could make them millions of dollars?
>I consider this in itself a strong indication that you are wrong.
Oh sure! This happens ALL the time. Microsoft has been on the
defending end of ALOT of stuff like this. IE: Remember the whole
double space (or whatever) fiasco. BIG bucks paid out there.
I'll let you guys hash out the rest for now - I side with Jim Neil on
this one though. I know I would be very upset of someone asked to
reveiw my product, then came out with their own clone shortly
thereafter. Also, didn't JN trade ad space in PTT for a copy of TERSE,
essentially making him one of your customers?
IE: This all seems very suspicious & immoral to me despite the
legality's.
You are obviously a talented programmer, and I reiterate - I would
much prefer to see you come up with some other projects rather than
get into this mess.
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <5e936m$p...@news.dal.ca>,
Norman L. DeForest <af...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>
>Those writing programmes that can read and/or create *.gif files still
>have to pay royalties on their software. Those creating software to
>process *.gif files didn't have a temporary problem "for a while."
>They have a problem because the *patent* (not copyright) holder didn't
>initially enforce the patent rights.
I think the royalties apply only those in the US. Here software
patents are not recognized.
>
>: > it. IE: You must pay the fee to offer ZIP handling in your source.
>
>: True? Info-ZIP handles ZIP format, is available in source
>: form, and is FREE! Are you purposely misinforming people?
>
>The algorithms can be used without royalties. The original code can't.
>
Well I would expect PK not to go to the road of banning others from
making compatible products as he once was a victim of a law suit because
he did just that.
Osmo
Eric J. Korpela
OK, Jim, creator of TERSE, answer me this one. If I created a a compiler
that took MASM source code and produced TERSE source code as an output,
would I be violating your copyrights?
Think carefully. If you claim that the TERSE language specification is
covered by your copyright, I would be in violation, because I would need
to use the specification to produce my decompiler, thus it is a derivative
work.
But if you claim this, I will claim that you are in violation of the
copyrights of Microsoft, Borland, and Intel, as you obviously needed
the specifications of Intel 80x86 Assembly Language to produce your
TERSE compiler. Do you claim it is alright for you to violate copyrights,
but not for others to do so?
If you don't claim I violated the copyright, then there is nothing preventing
me from using the TERSE specification to produce something the turns TERSE
source code into MASM source code, or turning TERSE source code directly
into object code. (After all we've agreed that copyrights do not cover
function. That is the realm of patents.)
In fact, by your arguments, anything written in TERSE is subject to your
copyrights because it is all written with reference to the TERSE language
specification.
You can't have it both ways. Which is it?
Eric
--
Eric Korpela | An object at rest can never be
kor...@ssl.berkeley.edu | stopped.
<a href="http://www.cs.indiana.edu/finger/mofo.ssl.berkeley.edu/korpela/w">
Click here for more info.</a>
Ed Parry
Hi TR!
At 07:35 AM 2/18/97 -0800, Tenie Remmel wrote:
>> 1) Why are you pushing parameters instead of apssing them in
>
>The push/pop method is for size optimization, believe it or not.
>This way you are not stuck with lots of xchg's etc. when you need to
>use more than one function inside a loop.
Hmmm, I find this interesting. Size, not speed for a/l?
>FREELIB was not designed so much for speed, but for size.
Gotcha.
>Stack frames, especially the optimized ones used in version 4.0 take
>only 2 extra bytes for most procedures. PUSHes are 1 byte.
>
>Cleaning up the stack on exit only requires placing an argument to
>the RET instruction - is that a big deal? (i.e. RET 4)
Not really. Just a bit more hassle for a/l programmers that might
wanna use the stack for their own purposes.
>> 2) The names of most of the routines are all from C based libraries
>> apparently.
>
>Well I wanted names others would understand. What does this have to
>do with anything?
It could be interpreted (in light of your recent TERSE clone
entanglements) that the library was simply taken from a C compiler or
the UCR standard set of a/l routines, modified (or not) an then
incorporated into your Freelib(rary). Not written from scratch.
>> I am not saying you deserve credit, but I am wondering if this is
>> truly a fully original idea & project? I am fairly decent at digging
>
>Well, others have written this type of library before.
Okay. My point was that perhaps Freelib is more of a compendeum of
routines that you found and modified (which is really okay IMHO) and
not coded entirely from scratch.
The PUSHed stack parameters sort of makes it look like a high level
language set of routines in the first regard, and the C naming
conventions appear to lend itself to this assumption as well.
>However, I wrote all but the graphics library from scratch. This
>does not mean that I did not get ideas from others code, but it
>definitely is original.
Okay. I believe you. It simply must appear otherwise thru coincidence.
Eric J. Korpela
In article <5ea08r$o...@hnssysb.hns.com>, Steven Huang <sth...@hns.com> wrote:
It's obvious these questions were meant for Jim, but I'll answer them anyway.
>
>What rights are given a creator of a language?
>
>a. Does it include the right to control who is allowed to write a
> compiler? (Entirely separate from the right to *name* the
> compiler, mind you.)
No. As long as the the new compiler is written without incorporating
the source or executable code of the original compiler. It the language
is published only as a specification, then the above obviously doesn't
apply.
>b. Does it include the right to control (demand royalty, for
> instance) what is written in that language?
Definitely not. A royalty can be demanded for code compiled by a specific
compiler or incoroporating certain runtime libraries.
>c. Does it include the right to control compatible or incompatible
> extensions to the language? (TASM duplicated even MASM bugs.)
No.
>d. Does it include the right to withdraw the language from use?
> (Can you suddenly say TERSE cannot be used in development from
> this day on?)
No.
>a. Do you think you have the right to control who writes a compatible
> compiler, even if it doesn't use the name TERSE?
No.
>b. Do you believe you have rights to (even though you may have waived
> it) code written by others in TERSE?
No.
>c. Do you think you have the right to prevent additions to TERSE, even
> if it's made in another name? Interesting question becomes, how
> much addition will make it a new language altogether?
No.
>d. Do you believe you have the right, given that you created TERSE, to
> withdraw all rights of use granted (such as refunding compiler
> customers)? This would probably cost your customers far more than
> they paid for the compiler.
Yes, if such rights were stipulated in advance of purchase. This is
subject to the limitation that Jim only has right to TERSE, not the clones.
Unless, of course, the copyright infringement has been PROVEN.
Jerry Coffin
In article <330758...@mail.idt.net>, tj...@mail.idt.net
(Tenie Remmel) says...
> And I have not taken a single cent from you. Or gained anything
> from your non-existent losses. You misunderstand the difference
> between a copyright and a patent. Again:
>
> Patents protect ideas (i.e. TERSE).
Not so - patents protect specific implementations of ideas, not the
ideas themselves. They must be definite enough for somebody skilled
in the art to 1) implement the invention, and 2) determine whether or
not (s)he is infringing on the patent.
For instance, the Welch patent on LZW compression, does NOT cover all
forms of data compresion, nor even all those based on representing
repeated strings by a code derived from the previous instance of the
string in a dictionary. It covers only those that take one _very_
specific set of steps in building a dictionary and using it to
compress a stream of bytes.
The Welch patent does have one interesting point: so far, nobody
appears to have found a way of producing the same data stream by any
other method. Therefore, if you want to produce, e.g. a .GIF file,
there's no KNOWN method of doing so without infringing the Welch
patent. However, if somebody could figure out a way of producing an
identical data stream without using the steps given in the patent,
they would NOT infringe despite clearly using the same basic idea.
--
Later,
Jerry.
Norman L. DeForest
BEVERNON (beve...@aol.com) wrote:
: > Thanks you for seeing this VERY important difference. I specifically
: >don't want anyone else to write a TERSE compiler. It is my individual
: >EXPRESSION and I hold the copyright to it. Maintaining the "purity" of
: >TERSE is important for my customers. The "extensions" to TERSE in the
: >"clones" totally ignore the philosophy behind the selection of the
: >TERSE operators. Of course I expect nothing less from people apparently
: >incapable of original thought.
: Express (your emotions) all you want, but the truth of the matter is you
: only have copyrights over your concrete expression; i.e. the compiler you
: have written, and not the concept behind it. You may also be able to
: copyright the manuals, etc, but you'll be hard pressed to enforce a
===================================
: copyright on the mnemonics, operators, syntax etc.
==================================================
: You wouldn't want to get into trouble on this one, so you really ought to
: check your standing with an intellectual property lawyer, and save your
: energy for improving your language... Sad as it might be, language
: definitions aren't protected by copyright. Course I may be wrong, (as a
: matter of fact, I'm often wrong), but I don't think so... ;-)
: As for your customers, if your implementation is technically superior to
: the 'clones' you will retain them. Otherwise, you will lose them.
: Brad
: BEVERNON
Wasn't one of the reasons for the vast difference in syntax between Z-80
assembler and 8080 assembler the fact that Zilog couldn't duplicate the
mnemonics that Intel used without copyright infringement?
TDL created a Z-80 assembler that used 8080 syntax with extensions for
the Z-80 instructions that were totally different from the mnemonics used
by Zilog as they were already licenced to use the Intel Assembler syntax.
But Intel wasn't about to grant the same licence (and rightfully so
according to the law, as far as I know) to one of their direct competitors.
Jerzy Tarasiuk
>>>>> Ed Parry <au...@lafn.org> writes:
> breakdown. Micro is 1/10,000th of a second and this is over
Micro is 1/1,000,000, nano is 1/1,000,000,000.
>> And note your "time" is counting down. Also note the timer
>> needs some initialization - otherwise it counts by 2. Also
> Even by two's is enough, but I think I would agree that I would prefer
The problem is you read even values only: 65534,65532,65530...
and if program doesn't know it assumes twice more time passed.
> In the case above, would it handle roll over? This has been MY biggest
As far as the delay specified is significantly less than
max 16-bit value (the "less" means sufficient margin for
compare, and the margin depends on many factors - enabled
or disabled interrupts, max time used for int servicing
if interrupts are enabled - the problem is if you request
time near 65535 it is possible to miss detecting that it
passed and to start waiting for next match), it works.
Handling values exceeding 16 bits is much more complicated.
Steven Huang
In article <MPLANET.330a19...@news.rmi.net> jco...@taeus.com (Jerry Coffin) writes:
[...]
>Not so - patents protect specific implementations of ideas, not the
>ideas themselves. They must be definite enough for somebody skilled
>in the art to 1) implement the invention, and 2) determine whether or
>not (s)he is infringing on the patent.
>For instance, the Welch patent on LZW compression, does NOT cover all
>forms of data compresion, nor even all those based on representing
>repeated strings by a code derived from the previous instance of the
>string in a dictionary. It covers only those that take one _very_
>specific set of steps in building a dictionary and using it to
>compress a stream of bytes.
That's not the way I understand it. The LZW compression algorithm is
patented, meaning expressing it in any computer language without
permission is a violation of the patent. It doesn't just cover, for
example, "LZW using Turbo C on an IBM PC", which is what I read as
your "specific implementation of ideas". Specific expressions of
ideas are covered under copyright. Patents, AFAIK, protect the
underlying idea (if patentable, naturally).
For example, if I write a bubblesort function, such function is
protected under copyright, such that anybody who copies my source or
object code totally or even partially are infringing upon my right.
However, somebody else who reads about bubblesort and reimplements
it is not. The *idea* of bubblesort (the specific algorithm) is not
protected by copyright. However, If I read about LZW and implement
it in a function, I *am* infringing upon the patent, because I used
a protected idea. It doesn't matter whether I've looked at Welch's
source or object code or not.
>The Welch patent does have one interesting point: so far, nobody
>appears to have found a way of producing the same data stream by any
>other method. Therefore, if you want to produce, e.g. a .GIF file,
>there's no KNOWN method of doing so without infringing the Welch
>patent. However, if somebody could figure out a way of producing an
>identical data stream without using the steps given in the patent,
>they would NOT infringe despite clearly using the same basic idea.
Because typically very basic (obvious) ideas are not patentable.
Disclaimer: I am *not* qualified to give legal advice, and the above
is my understanding of related laws, not an authoritative interpreta-
tion.
Mike McCarty
In article <MPLANET.330a19...@news.rmi.net>,
Jerry Coffin <jco...@taeus.com> wrote:
)In article <330758...@mail.idt.net>, tj...@mail.idt.net
)(Tenie Remmel) says...
)
)> And I have not taken a single cent from you. Or gained anything
)> from your non-existent losses. You misunderstand the difference
)> between a copyright and a patent. Again:
)>
)> Patents protect ideas (i.e. TERSE).
)
)Not so - patents protect specific implementations of ideas, not the
)ideas themselves. They must be definite enough for somebody skilled
)in the art to 1) implement the invention, and 2) determine whether or
)not (s)he is infringing on the patent.
Patents protect exactly two things:
devices
processes
They do not protect ideas, nor do they protect the embodiment of ideas.
Ideas are protected by trade secret. The embodiment of ideas is
protected by copyright. Devices and processes are protected by patent.
[snip]
Mike
--
----
char *p="char *p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
I don't speak for DSC. <- They make me say that.
Jerzy Tarasiuk
>>>>> Steven Huang <sth...@hns.com> writes:
> In article <MPLANET.330a19...@news.rmi.net> jco...@taeus.com (Jerry Coffin) writes:
>> For instance, the Welch patent on LZW compression, does NOT cover all
>> string in a dictionary. It covers only those that take one _very_
>> specific set of steps in building a dictionary and using it to
> patented, meaning expressing it in any computer language without
> permission is a violation of the patent. It doesn't just cover, for
> example, "LZW using Turbo C on an IBM PC", which is what I read as
I suppose you misunderstood what Jerry said. Writing the algorithm
in any language is patent violation (unless done with permission),
although if anyone writes a program using different algorithm (not
containing these steps described in the patent), it is _legal_.
Also, if anyone finds these steps to be published _before_ the
patent was sent to Patent Office, the entire patent will be
invalidated and anyone will be able to use the algorithm.
This requires, of course, very precise specification what specific
properties have the patented process of data compression. It uses
hash table: make an algorithm w/o hash table and it is different
process, IMHO, and is not a patent violation (one problem: it is
slow, really much slower, and therefore much less useful).
>> other method. Therefore, if you want to produce, e.g. a .GIF file,
>> there's no KNOWN method of doing so without infringing the Welch
>> patent. However, if somebody could figure out a way of producing an
>> identical data stream without using the steps given in the patent,
>> they would NOT infringe despite clearly using the same basic idea.
I suppose one can use different process to produce equivalent data
- note PKZIP and Info-ZIP, they both compress data, and both PKUNZIP
and Info-UNZIP can decompress .ZIP produced by any of them. These
.ZIP-s aren't the same, but uncompressed data is the same. Maybe
something like it is possible with GIF-s: different GIF obtained
using different algorithm, but producing exactly same image...
Eric J. Korpela
Jim, you haven't answered my question so I'll repeat my post.
I'd hate to think you're dodging a logical argument.
------------------------ Repeat of previous post -------------------------
OK, Jim, creator of TERSE, answer me this one. If I created a a compiler
that took MASM source code and produced TERSE source code as an output,
would I be violating your copyrights?
Think carefully. If you claim that the TERSE language specification is
covered by your copyright, I would be in violation, because I would need
to use the specification to produce my decompiler, thus it is a derivative
work.
But if you claim this, I will claim that you are in violation of the
copyrights of Microsoft, Borland, and Intel, as you obviously needed
the specifications of Intel 80x86 Assembly Language to produce your
TERSE compiler. Do you claim it is alright for you to violate copyrights,
but not for others to do so?
If you don't claim I violated the copyright, then there is nothing preventing
me from using the TERSE specification to produce something the turns TERSE
source code into MASM source code, or turning TERSE source code directly
into object code. (After all we've agreed that copyrights do not cover
function. That is the realm of patents.)
In fact, by your arguments, anything written in TERSE is subject to your
copyrights because it is all written with reference to the TERSE language
specification.
You can't have it both ways. Which is it?
Eric
Jim Neil
In article <5eai52$4...@hnssysb.hns.com>, sth...@hns.com (Steven Huang) says:
>
>In article <5eabkg$k93$1...@ddi2.digital.net> jim-...@digital.net (Jim Neil) writes:
>>In article <5ea08r$o...@hnssysb.hns.com>, sth...@hns.com (Steven Huang) says:
>
>[Don't get me wrong - this isn't an attack on TERSE or you, but some
> nagging doubts about the implications of concepts you raise.]
>What about the expression of the idea of assembly language implemented
>in the Microsoft assembler? Do you think they could prevent something
>like Turbo Assembler from using its syntax? Clearly, TASM "stole" market
>share from MASM, and I'd suspect this is far greater in scale than TERSE's
>clones ever will hurt TERSE.
I doubt that Microsoft would have much of a leg to stand on as their
work (MASM) is a derivative work based on Intel's x86 assembley language.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, it is/was in Intel's best interest to
allow (encourage) others to clone their assemblers and distribute the
documentation necessary to program their CPUs. Their business is selling
CPUs NOT SELLING ASSEMBLERS.
>What if I design a language with only an operator "+"? Most computer
>languages would be supersets of my language, *especially* those
>provably designed after mine. Are they thus "derivative works"? This
>may sound extreme an example, but where's the line?
Of course you can't protect a specific "symbol" any more than the
author of "Gone With The Wind" could protect the name "Rhet Buttler"(sp?).
The line is pretty easy to draw: Is it a derivative work or not? You
as the author would KNOW if you were stealing the work of others.
>I haven't had a close look at TERSE, but I'd expect that you chose
>familiar symbols for operations, like "+" for addition, "-" for
>subtraction. If so, isn't it fairly common for somebody who is
>trying for the same goal as TERSE was choose the same symbols? If
>so, does that mean *parts* of TERSE are not protected by copyright?
Of course not. If they design a language with out stealing TERSE
there is no violation. However, to say that their language is 99%
compatable with TERSE is a CLEAR violation.
>For example, right this minute, if I wanted a more readable assembler,
>I might design (C-ishly):
>
> AX = BX ; MOV AX, BX
> AX ?= CX ; CMP AX, CX
> AX += BX ; ADD AX, BX
> AX <<= 1 ; SHL AX, 1
>
>trivially. With more thought would I have come up with something that
>looks maybe 40% like TERSE?
It looks TOTALLY different from TERSE. You would NOT be in
violation if you were to express such a language.
[8<]
>Again, the MASM-TASM question. There are potentially many ways TASM
>could've approached the 80x86 assembly language problem, but Borland
>chose a Microsoft-compatible one. I don't think Microsoft ever gave
>them any flak about it, so I'm not sure your stand is sound in court.
What others do or don't do in no way erodes my rights. Microsoft
derivied MASM from Intel's assembly language, so perhaps they felt
they had better not stir the waters.
>Another example would be Intel and clones. Could Intel copyright the
>opcodes of the x86, which is surely an original creation and arguably
>a language in itself? Could Microsoft copyright its Windows API?
Microsoft could prevent someone from copying the Windows operating
system if they could prove that it was developed as a derivative work.
I don't know how hardware is effected by copyright law, so I won't
comment on the Intel clones.
>Outside the scope of TERSE, many language software are shipped only
>with a license to *use* it, and does not convey ownership.
>
>Problem is, if a judge/jury is to decide that you own certain rights
>to the TERSE language like those you claim, I'm not sure they can
>stop exactly where you propose they do. I *think* that if they grant
>you the right to control compilers/extensions to TERSE, the right to
>control something written in TERSE (whether you waive it or not) may
>come with it. For that reason, the entire package may be denied you.
This is flawed. If I write a "How to" book, you can use the
information in the book, but you can't copy the book. Of course you
can USE TERSE, you just can't copy it (render it worthless).
>For example, IIRC, fonts are not protected by copyright. The logic
>was, if fonts were controllable, then the words written in those fonts
>can also be controlled by the copyright owner. (You may never be able
>to publish a single word against rich men!) In that light, the rights
>of the people who had to draw the fonts are sacrificed for the public
>good.
TERSE is NOT a font. TERSE is NOT used in everyday conversation
and there is no "public good" that results from my creation of TERSE.
If TERSE were the ONLY POSSIBLE EXPRESSION, that might be another
question. No one is FORCING anyone to use TERSE. We ARE however ALL
forced to use the written word to communicate.
>Could be paranoia, but cases like the GIF patent are scary. The legal
>system doesn't always work the way we think it does. I'm personally
>not interested in either TERSE or its clones, because I haven't had to
>write a lot of x86 assembly for a while, but if what you believe turns
>out to be the norm, I see opportunity for abuse. IOW, I'm not
>disturbed by TERSE, but by the possibility that somebody can create
>and control a computer language.
Abuse? How? People should have the right to benifit from their
labor. Are you suggesting that people should GIVE THEIR WORK AWAY?
I have to eat.
Richard Krehbiel
[snip it all - summarize that TERSE is Jim Neil's]
Well, I certainly wouldn't bet any of my projects a single-vendor
niche language like TERSE. Who knows, next week Jim Neil might be hit
by a truck and I'd suddenly be orphaned. If I program in MASM then I
have seven or eight alternative vendors. If I use TERSE I'm beholden
to Jim Neil forever.
--
Richard Krehbiel, Kastle Systems, Arlington, VA, USA
ri...@kastle.com (work) or ri...@mnsinc.com (personal)
Steven Huang
In article <5ei32t$ceb$8...@ddi2.digital.net> jim-...@digital.net (Jim Neil) writes:
[...]
> I doubt that Microsoft would have much of a leg to stand on as their
>work (MASM) is a derivative work based on Intel's x86 assembley language.
>As I have pointed out elsewhere, it is/was in Intel's best interest to
>allow (encourage) others to clone their assemblers and distribute the
>documentation necessary to program their CPUs. Their business is selling
>CPUs NOT SELLING ASSEMBLERS.
The point doesn't really change, Jim. If Intel never explicitly said
the x86 assembly language was released into the public domain, do you
then think they hold the right to the 80x86 assembly language that
MASM and TASM derived from? As such, would they be in a position to
demand royalty from Microsoft and Borland and perhaps even you?
> Of course you can't protect a specific "symbol" any more than the
>author of "Gone With The Wind" could protect the name "Rhet Buttler"(sp?).
>The line is pretty easy to draw: Is it a derivative work or not? You
>as the author would KNOW if you were stealing the work of others.
I think that falls under Amendment number five, IIRC. I doubt you
could ask that question in court.
> Of course not. If they design a language with out stealing TERSE
>there is no violation. However, to say that their language is 99%
>compatable with TERSE is a CLEAR violation.
Intel or Microsoft... somebody came up with *that* syntax. If we
uphold TERSE's copyright we must then also uphold theirs, no?
>>With more thought would I have come up with something that
>>looks maybe 40% like TERSE?
> It looks TOTALLY different from TERSE. You would NOT be in
>violation if you were to express such a language.
Hmm, you missed my point. What if I *did* come up with something that
looks like TERSE? I presume you pick symbols that make sense, and
if I'm sensible wouldn't I be likely to design something that looked
like your creation? Not quite "great minds think alike", but computer
languages generally show great resemblance to others in its paradigm
(eww, it's that word again ;) ).
You would be, IMO, forced to decide who copied TERSE, and who came up
with it independently? That's a tough legal position.
>[8<]
>>Again, the MASM-TASM question. There are potentially many ways TASM
>>could've approached the 80x86 assembly language problem, but Borland
>>chose a Microsoft-compatible one. I don't think Microsoft ever gave
>>them any flak about it, so I'm not sure your stand is sound in court.
> What others do or don't do in no way erodes my rights. Microsoft
>derivied MASM from Intel's assembly language, so perhaps they felt
>they had better not stir the waters.
Then why didn't Intel demand royalty? I expect even a fraction of the
sales of MASM and TASM to be significant. In fact, I wonder if works
that generate MASM/TASM code require royalty as well?
>>Another example would be Intel and clones. Could Intel copyright the
>>opcodes of the x86, which is surely an original creation and arguably
>>a language in itself? Could Microsoft copyright its Windows API?
> Microsoft could prevent someone from copying the Windows operating
>system if they could prove that it was developed as a derivative work.
I don't think so. I believe DR-DOS tried to be a compatible product,
at least at the API level. Microsoft was rumored to have placed
restrictions on Windows to make sure it doesn't run under DR-DOS, but
I don't think legal action was ever taken to remove DR-DOS for the
reason we are discussing.
[...]
>>Problem is, if a judge/jury is to decide that you own certain rights
>>to the TERSE language like those you claim, I'm not sure they can
>>stop exactly where you propose they do. I *think* that if they grant
>>you the right to control compilers/extensions to TERSE, the right to
>>control something written in TERSE (whether you waive it or not) may
>>come with it. For that reason, the entire package may be denied you.
> This is flawed. If I write a "How to" book, you can use the
>information in the book, but you can't copy the book. Of course you
>can USE TERSE, you just can't copy it (render it worthless).
True, but I believe the "can't copy it" covers only up to the compiler
you wrote, not the language it implements.
>>For example, IIRC, fonts are not protected by copyright. The logic
>>was, if fonts were controllable, then the words written in those fonts
>>can also be controlled by the copyright owner. (You may never be able
>>to publish a single word against rich men!) In that light, the rights
>>of the people who had to draw the fonts are sacrificed for the public
>>good.
> TERSE is NOT a font.
I think you're getting overly upset. We know it isn't a font.
> TERSE is NOT used in everyday conversation
>and there is no "public good" that results from my creation of TERSE.
>If TERSE were the ONLY POSSIBLE EXPRESSION, that might be another
>question. No one is FORCING anyone to use TERSE. We ARE however ALL
>forced to use the written word to communicate.
That's not the point. Point was, if you ever enter a position in which
TERSE is an industry standard (such as C today), these rights granted
you would make you a very powerful person. If Ritchie is permitted to
say who can use C and who cannot, he may quickly become richer than
Gates. If Ritchie thinks C++ violates C philosophy (quite the same way
you feel TERSE clones violate yours), could he sue Stroustrup and stop
him from an obvious derivative work? Whether you would abuse this power
or not is also beside the point, mind you. The point is no person should
be granted this kind of power.
>>Could be paranoia, but cases like the GIF patent are scary. The legal
>>system doesn't always work the way we think it does. I'm personally
>>not interested in either TERSE or its clones, because I haven't had to
>>write a lot of x86 assembly for a while, but if what you believe turns
>>out to be the norm, I see opportunity for abuse. IOW, I'm not
>>disturbed by TERSE, but by the possibility that somebody can create
>>and control a computer language.
> Abuse? How? People should have the right to benifit from their
>labor. Are you suggesting that people should GIVE THEIR WORK AWAY?
>I have to eat.
No, I think you should charge for your work. I just think your rights
on the TERSE *language* may not be as easy and clear cut as you seem
to see it.
Andrew Gierth
>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Neil <jim-...@digital.net> writes:
Jim> Of course not. If they design a language with out stealing
Jim> TERSE there is no violation. However, to say that their
Jim> language is 99% compatable with TERSE is a CLEAR violation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this contradicted by the cases
over dBase clones?
--
Andrew.
Steve Turner
Steven Huang wrote:
>
> In article <5ei32t$ceb$8...@ddi2.digital.net> jim-...@digital.net (Jim Neil) writes:
> [...]
> > I doubt that Microsoft would have much of a leg to stand on as their
> >work (MASM) is a derivative work based on Intel's x86 assembley language.
> >As I have pointed out elsewhere, it is/was in Intel's best interest to
> >allow (encourage) others to clone their assemblers and distribute the
> >documentation necessary to program their CPUs. Their business is selling
> >CPUs NOT SELLING ASSEMBLERS.
>
> The point doesn't really change, Jim. If Intel never explicitly said
> the x86 assembly language was released into the public domain, do you
> then think they hold the right to the 80x86 assembly language that
> MASM and TASM derived from? As such, would they be in a position to
> demand royalty from Microsoft and Borland and perhaps even you?
>
> > What others do or don't do in no way erodes my rights. Microsoft
> >derivied MASM from Intel's assembly language, so perhaps they felt
> >they had better not stir the waters.
>
> Then why didn't Intel demand royalty? I expect even a fraction of the
> sales of MASM and TASM to be significant. In fact, I wonder if works
> that generate MASM/TASM code require royalty as well?
It might interest you guys to know that the original Intel x86 Assembler
(emulated in many ways by MASM and TASM) was itself modeled after the
DEC PDP-11 assembler (apart from the obvious differences in the
instruction
set, that is). Many of the directives have the same name and syntax.
--
Steve Turner, OS/2 Developer's Tools, Assembler Development
IBM Corp., Austin TX. tur...@austin.ibm.com
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <5ed8qs$p...@zook.lafn.org>, Ed Parry <au...@lafn.org> wrote:
>
>>Stack frames, especially the optimized ones used in version 4.0 take
>>only 2 extra bytes for most procedures. PUSHes are 1 byte.
>>
>>Cleaning up the stack on exit only requires placing an argument to
>>the RET instruction - is that a big deal? (i.e. RET 4)
>
>Not really. Just a bit more hassle for a/l programmers that might
>wanna use the stack for their own purposes.
>
How does the use of stack for parameters prevent that? In any case you
need some free space in stack for interrupts.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <5eb4jh$j...@zook.lafn.org>, Ed Parry <au...@lafn.org> wrote:
>
>They APPEAR to be a standard set of C based funtions and routines not
>truly designed directly with a/l in mind.
>
>For example:
>
>and bulks the code, njot to mention make the routine cleans up thr
>stack when exiting.
>
C based?? In C the caller clears the stack not the called routine.
That enables routines with variable number of parameters, like printf().
Osmo
Jerry Coffin
In article <wzhgj7o...@fizyk2.fuw.edu.pl>, j...@fuw.edu.pl says...
[ ... ]
> I suppose you misunderstood what Jerry said. Writing the algorithm
> in any language is patent violation (unless done with permission),
Yes - none of the steps in the patent specifies a language in which it
is written, therefore implementing those steps in any language is an
infringement.
> although if anyone writes a program using different algorithm (not
> containing these steps described in the patent), it is _legal_.
> Also, if anyone finds these steps to be published _before_ the
> patent was sent to Patent Office, the entire patent will be
> invalidated and anyone will be able to use the algorithm.
Not exactly - if anybody could show publication of the same steps
before Terry Welch invented it, then they could invalidate the patent.
However, you can file the patent up to a year after you come up with
the invention, and to act as invalidating art, publication has to take
place. Even if you have something like lab notes that prove you
invented it first, if you never published them and never applied for a
patent, the patent remains valid.
> This requires, of course, very precise specification what specific
> properties have the patented process of data compression. It uses
> hash table: make an algorithm w/o hash table and it is different
> process, IMHO, and is not a patent violation (one problem: it is
> slow, really much slower, and therefore much less useful).
Unfortunately, the patent doesn't specify a hash table - the
disclosure talks about using hashing, but the claims don't make that
requirement. As it happens, there's (at least) one other viable
method, using a trie instead of a hash table. This is still covered
by the patent.
> >> other method. Therefore, if you want to produce, e.g. a .GIF
> >> file, there's no KNOWN method of doing so without infringing the
> >> Welch patent. However, if somebody could figure out a way of
> >> producing an identical data stream without using the steps given
> >> in the patent, they would NOT infringe despite clearly using the
> >> same basic idea.
>
> I suppose one can use different process to produce equivalent data
> - note PKZIP and Info-ZIP, they both compress data, and both PKUNZIP
> and Info-UNZIP can decompress .ZIP produced by any of them. These
> .ZIP-s aren't the same, but uncompressed data is the same. Maybe
> something like it is possible with GIF-s: different GIF obtained
> using different algorithm, but producing exactly same image...
While these use different code, they both implement the same
algorithm. It just happens that the LZSS (or perhaps it's a modifed
LZ77 - I don't remember for sure) algorithm they use isn't covered by
a patent (at least as far as I, or anybody else who's looked knows).
However, if Phil Katz had invented this method himself, and patented
it, there's a good chance that Info-Zip's code would infringe, though
it's impossible to be certain without an actual patent - sometimes the
precise wording involved makes a big difference. Of course in this
case, things could be extremely open to question, since Info-Zip
actually had working code for Zip 2.0 files _before_ Phil Katz did...
--
Later,
Jerry.
Scott Nudds
: Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Who does Tore Lund nominate to run the Mind police?
Tore Lund <tl...@sn.no> wrote:
: Scott, you're not answering my question, and you're not even funny. No
: one complains about Mind police when it comes to protecting other forms
: of intellectual or artistic achievements. What makes language design a
: special case?
Nothing. Ownership of information is abhorrent in all of its forms.
Tore Lund <tl...@sn.no> wrote:
: The point is: language design in general takes time and effort which
: must be paid for somehow.
Too bad. Find another field of work if you can't make money without
destroying intellectual freedom.
Who does Tore Lund nominate to run the Mind police?
--
<---->
Tim Behrendsen
Scott Nudds <af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in article
<5epcik$k...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>...
So I take it then you are against patents of any kind? Suppose
you are a small inventor and you invent "velcro" or some other
useful gadget. You think that Sears should be able to take your
invention and mass produce it while you get squat?
Patents, when properly applied, foster innovation because they
provide protection for individual inventors to market their
products. Otherwise, most wouldn't bother because it's too
hard to compete with already-established manufacturing entities.
Note also that patents require publishing the details of the
invention, which helps prevent "hoarding" of information.
--
=========================================================================|
| Tim Behrendsen (t...@a-sis.com) | http://www.cerfnet.com/~timb |
| "Judge all, and be prepared to be judged by all." |
=========================================================================|
Jim Neil
I will not comment on the success or failure of others to protect
and secure their copyrights. Their failure IN NO WAY erodes my rights.
Daniel P Hudson
sth...@hns.com (Steven Huang) wrote:
>In article <5ei32t$ceb$8...@ddi2.digital.net> jim-...@digital.net (Jim >>
It looks TOTALLY different from TERSE. You would NOT be in
>>violation if you were to express such a language.
>Hmm, you missed my point. What if I *did* come up with something that
>looks like TERSE? I presume you pick symbols that make sense, and
>if I'm sensible wouldn't I be likely to design something that looked
>like your creation? Not quite "great minds think alike", but computer
>languages generally show great resemblance to others in its paradigm
>(eww, it's that word again ;) ).
It doesn't matter. Jim has no legal rights to anything other than the
actual code/algorythim(s) used in his compiler. You can not duplicate
his parser, translation system etc.. assuming they are unique, but
you may duplicate the Terse langauge, the anti-trust laws ensure this.
Jim if you have a lawyer telling you otherwise, seek a 2nd opinion
as it sounds like you may be paying for NOTHING.
>> What others do or don't do in no way erodes my rights. Microsoft
>>derivied MASM from Intel's assembly language, so perhaps they felt
>>they had better not stir the waters.
>Then why didn't Intel demand royalty? I expect even a fraction of the
>sales of MASM and TASM to be significant. In fact, I wonder if works
>that generate MASM/TASM code require royalty as well?
Because they didn't want an impending law-suit, that's why. Less we
forget, that IBM, Intel, and amny other computer companies have been
taken to court over trying to prevent clones.
>> Microsoft could prevent someone from copying the Windows operating
>>system if they could prove that it was developed as a derivative work.
>I don't think so. I believe DR-DOS tried to be a compatible product,
>at least at the API level. Microsoft was rumored to have placed
>restrictions on Windows to make sure it doesn't run under DR-DOS, but
>I don't think legal action was ever taken to remove DR-DOS for the
>reason we are discussing.
Actually, windows just warned against any DOS other than MS-DOS, with
something stating they would not guarentee windows will run as it is
supposed to, and with good reason too. I've used Dr.Dos/Novel
DOS/OpenDos and it is not 100% MS-DOS compatable. The anti-MS fanatics
have blown this little warning message into a law-suit, but Caldera will
get nothing for a warning, I can guarentee you. All they have to do
is bring in a bug list for Dr. DOS.
Windows, as in the idea, is not protected, Windows as in the name of an
OS is though. You can legally duplicate windows, so long as your
files do not appear to be a copy of the files that come with windows.
>> This is flawed. If I write a "How to" book, you can use the
>>information in the book, but you can't copy the book. Of course you
>>can USE TERSE, you just can't copy it (render it worthless).
Yes, but I can use the information from your how-to book to write my
own, providing it is not an exact copy, and seel it without you having
one bit of legal right to compensation.
>True, but I believe the "can't copy it" covers only up to the compiler
>you wrote, not the language it implements.
It does. it covers the compiler/assembler, and not the langauge/general
idea. Hell, in the US, you can;t even protect other companies from
using your property, just ask AT&T about long distance lines they MUST
lease out for a FAIR fee.
>That's not the point. Point was, if you ever enter a position in which
>TERSE is an industry standard (such as C today), these rights granted
>you would make you a very powerful person. If Ritchie is permitted to
>say who can use C and who cannot, he may quickly become richer than
>Gates. If Ritchie thinks C++ violates C philosophy (quite the same way
>you feel TERSE clones violate yours), could he sue Stroustrup and stop
>him from an obvious derivative work? Whether you would abuse this
>power
Actually, Ritchie, nor Stroutsup retain rights to these langauges, but
rather the company they were working for at the time. AT&T for
Stroutsup, and I think AT&T owned Bell labs when Ritchie worked there.
But that doens't matter, there is no legal right to a langauge,
Otherwise the Brittish would be suiing the Americans as we speak, for
speaking. A langauge is a way to communicate between two objects.
Computer programming or otherwise.
>> Abuse? How? People should have the right to benifit from their
>>labor. Are you suggesting that people should GIVE THEIR WORK AWAY?
>>I have to eat.
No one said give the work away, charge for the Terse compiler all you
want, but demanding royalties from clones is out of your league, and
over your legal boundaries. You provide a quality product with a
professional feel, and people will pay for your product over the average
freeware/shareware clone. Look at MASM and Arrow assembler. Which
would you rather? Both are the same, well Arrow is MASM 3.x, but
they still wrk as assemblers, but one comes with a debugger and a
manual, the other doesn't. MASM is $100, arrow is free. I paid $100,
many people I know paid $100, other people paid $100 for Tasm, some paid
whatever A86's cost is, but few, if anym, use the Arrow assembler.
Please note, Jim, no one is saying you should or shouldn't be able
to control these things, but that you can't according to current
US LAW. Personally, I don't care. I won't use TERSE in my life because
of your monopolistic attitude [You think GM/CMC pays FORD royalties?],
and most people won't either, especially when GNU systems exist.
Jim Neil
In article <5ei350$2...@agate.berkeley.edu>, kor...@albert.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela) says:
>
>Jim, you haven't answered my question so I'll repeat my post.
>I'd hate to think you're dodging a logical argument.
I did answer this, but I'll re-post it FYI.
>------------------------ Repeat of previous post -------------------------
>Eric J. Korpela wrote:
>
> OK, Jim, creator of TERSE, answer me this one. If I created a a compiler
> that took MASM source code and produced TERSE source code as an output,
> would I be violating your copyrights?
Of course YOU would. If you take a English-Spanish dictonary and
*use* it to write a Spanish-English dictonary, you would violate the
copyright. This example MAY fall into under the "common knowledge"
exclusion to tables (like weight and measure tables), but the *logic*
would still apply. TERSE is *not* public knowledge, it is protected by
copyright. Writing ANYTHING that steals my copyrighted information is
a clear violation. If you were to write say a C compiler that generated
TERSE as its output, that WOULD be legal (it would just be writing a
program in TERSE, that's what the language is for).
> Think carefully. If you claim that the TERSE language specification is
> covered by your copyright, I would be in violation, because I would need
> to use the specification to produce my decompiler, thus it is a derivative
> work.
Writing programs in TERSE are not derivative works. Any more than
baking cookies from a cookbook violates the cookbook author's copyright.
Or, if you buy a book on "how to write" and then use that information
to write a book, there is no violation. Unless of course the book you
write is a book on "how to write" and it a "derivative work" from the
original book. Of course, if you think up your OWN WAY to explain
how to write, and express it using the methods set out in the original
work, there is no violation. The key is originality.
> But if you claim this, I will claim that you are in violation of the
> copyrights of Microsoft, Borland, and Intel, as you obviously needed
> the specifications of Intel 80x86 Assembly Language to produce your
> TERSE compiler. Do you claim it is alright for you to violate copyrights,
> but not for others to do so?
This is flawed logic. (See above). I am not copying their work,
I'm using it for the purpose they intended. Neither my compiler or
the manual "The TERSE Programming Language", explain the x86 instruction
set in anyway, they mearly "use" it. It I were to create a work, derived
from one of theirs that replaced their work, I would be in violation,
both legally and morally.
> If you don't claim I violated the copyright, then there is nothing preventing
> me from using the TERSE specification to produce something the turns TERSE
> source code into MASM source code, or turning TERSE source code directly
> into object code. (After all we've agreed that copyrights do not cover
> function. That is the realm of patents.)
The compiler "tells a story". If your compiler tells the SAME
story as mine, you have violated my copyright. In addition, you
could not document your compiler as that would be a clear violation
of my manual's copyright. It would be pretty simple to prove that
you did not come up with it independentally.
> In fact, by your arguments, anything written in TERSE is subject to your
> copyrights because it is all written with reference to the TERSE language
> specification.
Not true (see above). My customers are free to use the methods
described in "The TERSE Programming Language", but they are NOT free
to copy the manual or the compiler IN ANY FORM.
> You can't have it both ways. Which is it?
And I'm not asking for it both ways. The Copyright Laws were
enacted to protect people who work hard from people who would take
from the labor of others. The law is VERY clear. ALL forms of
creative works (Books, Songs, Recordings, etc,) are protected.
Computer programs and manuals are NOT treated as a special case.
They are afforded the same protection as any other form of creative
expression. Everybody has to eat. I have to eat too.
The legal system still uses common sense. Try applying a little
of it to your arguments. These cases are settled by everyday people
(juries) and they understand the difference between original work and
stealing the work of others.
I am honored that TERSE is so good and well received that I
have people trying to steal my idea. Fortunatually, there are
fair laws to protect my investment in developing TERSE and making
it available so the general programming public at a fair price.
Steven Huang
In article <5eprth$4qb$3...@ddi2.digital.net> jim-...@digital.net (Jim Neil) writes:
>In article <87k9o3m...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk>, Andrew Gierth <and...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk> says:
>>>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Neil <jim-...@digital.net> writes:
>> Jim> Of course not. If they design a language with out stealing
>> Jim> TERSE there is no violation. However, to say that their
>> Jim> language is 99% compatable with TERSE is a CLEAR violation.
>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this contradicted by the cases
>>over dBase clones?
> I will not comment on the success or failure of others to protect
>and secure their copyrights. Their failure IN NO WAY erodes my rights.
That's quite fine, but you should consider precedents - AFAIK it is
the basis of the US legal system. You can't ignore them because the
Judge sure isn't going to.
Scott Nudds
: > Who does Tore Lund nominate to run the Mind police?
"Tim Behrendsen" <t...@a-sis.com> wrote:
: So I take it then you are against patents of any kind?
Only patents applying to non-physical objects. Physical objects are
distinct from ideas.
"Tim Behrendsen" <t...@a-sis.com> wrote:
: Suppose
: you are a small inventor and you invent "velcro" or some other
: useful gadget. You think that Sears should be able to take your
: invention and mass produce it while you get squat?
Velcro is a physical object. It can be manipulated, and measured.
Ideas have no physical properties. They can not be measured.
"Tim Behrendsen" <t...@a-sis.com> wrote:
: Patents, when properly applied, foster innovation because they
: provide protection for individual inventors to market their
: products.
Thoughts when properly restricted, produce cattle.
--
<---->
Tim Behrendsen
> : > Who does Tore Lund nominate to run the Mind police?
>
> "Tim Behrendsen" <t...@a-sis.com> wrote:
> : So I take it then you are against patents of any kind?
>
> Only patents applying to non-physical objects. Physical objects are
> distinct from ideas.
Who's talking about patenting ideas? To get a patent, I believe
you have to have a working demonstration of the device. Presumably
you are talking about patenting algorithms; what is the difference
between a machine represented as levers, gears, and other
automata, and a machine represented by gates, flip-flops and
moving electrons? Answer: One you can see with the naked eye,
and one you can't. That's the *only* difference.
That having been said, my personal opinion is that the reason
everyone gets so worked up about software patents is that the
"wheel" inventions are still being invented. After all, the
art is only 50 years old, and the mechanical art is 2000 years
old. I think we should just define an arbitrary date, like
2030 or something, after which we define that all obvious
inventions of a software nature have been invented. After
that, patents are fair game.
If an algorithm hasn't been invented by 2030, it wasn't obvious. :-)
--
==========================================================================
| Tim Behrendsen (t...@a-sis.com) | http://www.cerfnet.com/~timb |
| "Judge all, and be prepared to be judged by all." |
==========================================================================
Daniel L. Bates
So if I follow the recipe and mix the stuff my self it's okay. If I design an
engine to do it with that recipe, put the ingrediants in and turn the crank
that's not.
Or if I can reverse entropy. take cooked food in and output the
ingrediants to the recipe that's illegal.
Steven Huang
In article <5ept1u$62v$1...@ddi2.digital.net> jim-...@digital.net (Jim Neil) writes:
>In article <5ei350$2...@agate.berkeley.edu>, kor...@albert.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela) says:
>> OK, Jim, creator of TERSE, answer me this one. If I created a a compiler
>> that took MASM source code and produced TERSE source code as an output,
>> would I be violating your copyrights?
> Of course YOU would. If you take a English-Spanish dictonary and
>*use* it to write a Spanish-English dictonary, you would violate the
>copyright. This example MAY fall into under the "common knowledge"
>exclusion to tables (like weight and measure tables), but the *logic*
>would still apply. TERSE is *not* public knowledge, it is protected by
>copyright. Writing ANYTHING that steals my copyrighted information is
>a clear violation. If you were to write say a C compiler that generated
>TERSE as its output, that WOULD be legal (it would just be writing a
>program in TERSE, that's what the language is for).
The plot thickens. Converting C to TERSE is okay, but converting MASM
to TERSE is not? I'm no lawyer, but I really don't think any Court
can judge that way.
>> Think carefully. If you claim that the TERSE language specification is
>> covered by your copyright, I would be in violation, because I would need
>> to use the specification to produce my decompiler, thus it is a derivative
>> work.
> Writing programs in TERSE are not derivative works. Any more than
>baking cookies from a cookbook violates the cookbook author's copyright.
>Or, if you buy a book on "how to write" and then use that information
>to write a book, there is no violation. Unless of course the book you
>write is a book on "how to write" and it a "derivative work" from the
>original book. Of course, if you think up your OWN WAY to explain
>how to write, and express it using the methods set out in the original
>work, there is no violation. The key is originality.
So why would converting MASM to TERSE be violating copyright? Or perhaps
you misread Eric?
>> But if you claim this, I will claim that you are in violation of the
>> copyrights of Microsoft, Borland, and Intel, as you obviously needed
>> the specifications of Intel 80x86 Assembly Language to produce your
>> TERSE compiler. Do you claim it is alright for you to violate copyrights,
>> but not for others to do so?
> This is flawed logic. (See above). I am not copying their work,
>I'm using it for the purpose they intended. Neither my compiler or
>the manual "The TERSE Programming Language", explain the x86 instruction
>set in anyway, they mearly "use" it. It I were to create a work, derived
>from one of theirs that replaced their work, I would be in violation,
>both legally and morally.
The TERSE programming language and the TERSE compiler, like the Microsoft
assembly language and the Microsoft Assembler, are two different things.
The compiler/assembler is protected as usual by copyright, but the right
to use the language, as you say, is not.
This is very confusing. It appears the only act you object to (the only
right you want to retain) is converting TERSE to assembly language!
>> If you don't claim I violated the copyright, then there is nothing preventing
>> me from using the TERSE specification to produce something the turns TERSE
>> source code into MASM source code, or turning TERSE source code directly
>> into object code. (After all we've agreed that copyrights do not cover
>> function. That is the realm of patents.)
> The compiler "tells a story". If your compiler tells the SAME
>story as mine, you have violated my copyright.
In the same way TASM violates MASM copyright? (If your case is ever
upheld in Court, ooh boy.) How about the dBase clones?
>In addition, you
>could not document your compiler as that would be a clear violation
>of my manual's copyright. It would be pretty simple to prove that
>you did not come up with it independentally.
You don't have to if the language is not protected by copyright. Let
me put it this way - the clone compiler *may* be in violation of the
original compiler you wrote, *if* it was based on your code. However,
the clone compiler is probably not in violation of the manual's
copyright by implementing the language specified. As for quoting your
manual in source codes, that is trivially avoided (if necessary) by
something like "See section 1.1.3 of Jim's Manual".
>> In fact, by your arguments, anything written in TERSE is subject to your
>> copyrights because it is all written with reference to the TERSE language
>> specification.
> Not true (see above). My customers are free to use the methods
>described in "The TERSE Programming Language", but they are NOT free
>to copy the manual or the compiler IN ANY FORM.
Correct, but are you going to argue that writing a compiler for a
language is a violation of a manual's copyright? The two have
*fundamental* differences, and is *not* analogous to photocopying the
manual.
>> You can't have it both ways. Which is it?
> And I'm not asking for it both ways. The Copyright Laws were
>enacted to protect people who work hard from people who would take
>from the labor of others. The law is VERY clear. ALL forms of
>creative works (Books, Songs, Recordings, etc,) are protected.
>Computer programs and manuals are NOT treated as a special case.
>They are afforded the same protection as any other form of creative
>expression. Everybody has to eat. I have to eat too.
Yes, and the law, AFAI understand, protects your compiler from lazy
pirates who copy it illegally (copyright). It protects your manual
from being photocopied or otherwise reproduced for profit. It will
*not* protect you against a TERSE expert who writes a book called
"Advanced Programming in TERSE", even if such book uses information
from your original work (which presumably is the authoritative basis.)
It also will not prevent a person from reading your manual and
producing a compiler. Such is only possible with a patent.
> The legal system still uses common sense. Try applying a little
>of it to your arguments. These cases are settled by everyday people
>(juries) and they understand the difference between original work and
>stealing the work of others.
Stealing your compiler is wrong. Stealing your language is also
wrong. That much is obvious. The question is, is implementing a
compiler for your language to be considered stealing your language?
THIS QUESTION MUST BE ANSWERED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE FACT THAT YOU
WRITE COMPILERS FOR THIS LANGUAGE FOR A LIVING. My opinion is,
such clone compilers might make you lose sales in your own compiler,
but it in no way harms the TERSE *language*'s rights. You cannot
claim that this clone harms you because you also write compilers!
What would be an act that harms the language? Making minor
modifications and claim that it is another original language.
Physically (electronically) duplicating original information in your
manuals. Writing a compiler, IMHO, will not be considered such,
nor will a sufficiently-original language inspired by TERSE.
> I am honored that TERSE is so good and well received that I
>have people trying to steal my idea. Fortunatually, there are
>fair laws to protect my investment in developing TERSE and making
>it available so the general programming public at a fair price.
What is flawed is that you are treating your compiler and the language
it implements as one object, protected under the same copyright. I
don't think that is true at all.
Aaron F Stanton
I lost track of this thread for a little while...I offered to
help set up a site for a symbolic assembly language.
Was anyone interested in doing this, or would you people rather
argue with Mr. Neil?
Aaron F Stanton
Tore Lund
I'm puzzled about your intentions. I therefore repeat my letter of last
Friday, in case you missed it:
QUOTE
Say, what exactly do you have in mind? Since you say "x86 based", I get
the impression that you're looking for something like TERSE, in which
one can manipulate the registers of the x86 processors using a more
speedy notation than assembler. In that case, what is wrong with TERSE?
Or are you thinking of something closer to BCPL or similar low-level
languages? If you see the need for a new language, I'd like to know what
niche you perceive as being empty.
And why should it output assembler rather than object code?
I do hope you're not talking about the "portable assembler", whose name
is written in blood and misery on this newsgroup.
UNQUOTE
Tore
--
Tore Lund <tl...@sn.no>
Michel or Betty C
In <01bc2429$ab740de0$87ee...@timpent.a-sis.com>, "Tim Behrendsen" <t...@a-sis.com> writes:
>Scott Nudds <af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in article
><5f1tpq$j...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>...
>> : > Who does Tore Lund nominate to run the Mind police?
>>
>> "Tim Behrendsen" <t...@a-sis.com> wrote:
>> : So I take it then you are against patents of any kind?
>>
>> Only patents applying to non-physical objects. Physical objects are
>> distinct from ideas.
>
>Who's talking about patenting ideas? To get a patent, I believe
>you have to have a working demonstration of the device. Presumably
>you are talking about patenting algorithms; what is the difference
>between a machine represented as levers, gears, and other
>automata, and a machine represented by gates, flip-flops and
>moving electrons? Answer: One you can see with the naked eye,
>and one you can't. That's the *only* difference.
>
>That having been said, my personal opinion is that the reason
>everyone gets so worked up about software patents is that the
>"wheel" inventions are still being invented. After all, the
>art is only 50 years old, and the mechanical art is 2000 years
>old. I think we should just define an arbitrary date, like
>2030 or something, after which we define that all obvious
>inventions of a software nature have been invented. After
>that, patents are fair game.
>
>If an algorithm hasn't been invented by 2030, it wasn't obvious. :-)
>
Interesting subject, the patents. I deal with those too often where I work.
Patents are ideas that are registered. You must have a working product to
patent it. The patent can hurt you just as much as it can help you. If you
don't have a patent on your product somebody will copy it and patent it.
If you register it and the patent isn't vague enough it will be easy to both
copy it and get around the patent. Either way if you don't have the money
to follow up in court you're screwed. The biggest companies infringe on patents
all the time and you lose your shirt sueing them and they will ruin you when
they sue you for patent infringement.
As far as software, it is very important to have ideas registered as well.
One of my brothers (one of 6) in Montreal wrote a very good business application.
The original name was PMS (Just the first letters of the project, doesn't mean
anything in French like it does in English), it's now called PM+ or something like that
because the Anglos didn't think much of the original name.
Anyhow, his employer didn't bother to registered the program and some big
software company in the USA copied it and then sued my brother's company
for infringement. They even had the balls to offer a seminar to my brother
who wrote the application.
------------------------------------------------------------
Michel Catudal Team OS/2 USA member
http://www.netonecom.net/~bbcat/
We do remote debuggers, C compilers and assemblers for microcontrollers. Software runs under
OS/2 or DOS, soon under Linux
We have Links to OS/2, Linux, dos, windoze, genealogy, history, humor ... sites
On a des liens pour des sites d'OS/2, de Linux, de dos, de chassis, de généalogie, d'histoire, d'humour ...
------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron F Stanton
Tore Lund wrote:
>
> Aaron F Stanton wrote:
> >
> > I lost track of this thread for a little while...I offered to
> > help set up a site for a symbolic assembly language.
> >
> > Was anyone interested in doing this, or would you people rather
> > argue with Mr. Neil?
>
> I'm puzzled about your intentions. I therefore repeat my letter of last
> Friday, in case you missed it:
>
> QUOTE
>
> Say, what exactly do you have in mind? Since you say "x86 based", I get
> the impression that you're looking for something like TERSE, in which
> one can manipulate the registers of the x86 processors using a more
> speedy notation than assembler. In that case, what is wrong with TERSE?
My apologies - I did miss your post of last Friday.
My opinion on what is wrong with TERSE: Probably nothing. I'm a fairly
inexperienced programmer, to be totally honest. What I find annoying is
the propensity of some people in this newsgroup to argue about Mr.
Neils's
language rather than doing anything constructive. TERSE may be a
wonderful
language, for all I know - I've never used it. Some people seem to want
to write a compiler for it, or to extend it and improve it, and he seems
adamant about refusing to permit this. I'm no lawyer and won't pretend
to
know whether or not he has the legal right to claim sole possession of
the
TERSE language in addition to the compiler and documentation. I don't
really
care about that - What I think is that if people want to pour effort
into
writing a compiler for a symbolic assembler language and extending one,
why
not create a new one? If it happens to wind up a portable assembler
(neat
trick, I would think), that's fine, but considering this is, after all,
a world where Intel is pretty dominant, I'd think aiming it at the x86
first
would be best.
Why output assembler rather than object code? Good question. I can
think
of only one real answer, and that is that "pure" assembler, ignoring
types
and that sort of thing, seems to me to appear in only two syntaxes that
are widely
used: Intel and AT&T. There are a plethora of object code formats, and
I
think an assembler like NASM, which can output to several different
object
types, would make for a decent back end to this thing. Perhaps a simple
switch could turn on the output of AT&T syntax to let one use GAS, if
desired.
Sigh...it's not so much a niche that I perceive as empty as exasperation
at people arguing rather than acting. I'm willing to act as host and
perhaps
somewhat arbiter (sp?) over something like this, but due to my lack of
programming experience I cannot promise anything about my ability to aid
in the implementation of something new. I DO think that with a few
competent
people working TOGETHER rather than wasting effort arguing, something
positive might be accomplished.
This is not aimed at you, Mr. Lund, or at anyone in particular. I'm
just
trying to express my frustration. If noone is interested in actually
doing something and would rather argue, that's fine - arguing is fun
too.
Aaron
Tore Lund
Aaron F Stanton wrote:
>
> Tore Lund wrote:
> >
> > Say, what exactly do you have in mind? Since you say "x86 based", I get
> > the impression that you're looking for something like TERSE, in which
> > one can manipulate the registers of the x86 processors using a more
> > speedy notation than assembler. In that case, what is wrong with TERSE?
>
>
> What I think is that if people want to pour effort into writing a
> why not create a new one? If it happens to wind up a portable
> assembler (neat trick, I would think), that's fine, but considering
> this is, after all, a world where Intel is pretty dominant, I'd think
> aiming it at the x86 first would be best.
Thanks for writing. I was hoping you had more definite ideas, that's why
I pressed for an answer. Personally, I don't feel the need for a
language that would give us slightly better structure and slightly less
typing, yet essentially remain assembler.
And I think I would like to have rather firm information about the P7
before I made another x86 type language or assembler.
I do think that we might need a new low-level language, but it should
contain genuinely new elements in order to warrant the effort required.
> This is not aimed at you, Mr. Lund, or at anyone in particular. I'm
> just trying to express my frustration. If noone is interested in
> actually doing something and would rather argue, that's fine - arguing
> is fun too.
Well, part of this copyright debate has been necessary and useful. But,
as normally happens, some people are unable to stop when the time is
ripe.
K Goldman
bb...@netonecom.net (Michel or Betty C) writes:
|> "Tim Behrendsen" <t...@a-sis.com> writes:
|> >Who's talking about patenting ideas? To get a patent, I believe
|> >you have to have a working demonstration of the device. [snip]
|> Patents are ideas that are registered. You must have a working product to
|> patent it. [snip]
Not that I'm an attorney, but ...
AFAIK, you do not need to demonstrate or even have a working product
to be awarded a patent. As I understand it, the description of the
invention must be complete enough so that someone of ordinary skill in
the art would be able to produce the invention.
--
Ken Goldman kg...@watson.ibm.com 914-945-1466
Scott Nudds
: > "Tim Behrendsen" <t...@a-sis.com> wrote:
: > : So I take it then you are against patents of any kind?
Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Only patents applying to non-physical objects. Physical objects are
: > distinct from ideas.
"Tim Behrendsen" <t...@a-sis.com> wrote:
: Who's talking about patenting ideas? To get a patent, I believe
: you have to have a working demonstration of the device.
Software is not a device. It is not physical. It is nothing more
than a pattern.
"Tim Behrendsen" <t...@a-sis.com> wrote:
: Presumably
: you are talking about patenting algorithms; what is the difference
: between a machine represented as levers, gears, and other
: automata, and a machine represented by gates, flip-flops and
: moving electrons?
One physically exists, has measurable physical characteristics, can
not be encrypted or encoded, has a limited number of similar
implementations etc.
The other does not physically exist, has no measurable physical
characteristics, can not be encrypted or encoded, and has an infinite
number of similar implementations.
"Tim Behrendsen" <t...@a-sis.com> wrote:
: Answer: One you can see with the naked eye,
: and one you can't. That's the *only* difference.
Nonsense.
What's the difference between a program controlling the transition of
gates and moving electrons and a thought controlling the transition of
neurons and moving electrons?
Answer: There is no significant difference. Software ownership is no
different than ownership of ideas, and both are a direct violation of
freedom of thought and expression.
"Tim Behrendsen" <t...@a-sis.com> wrote:
: If an algorithm hasn't been invented by 2030, it wasn't obvious. :-)
If a thought wasn't thought before 2030, it wasn't obvious.
Who does Tim Behrendsen nominate to head the mind police?
--
<---->
Mike Martin
Scott Nudds <af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote:
> What's the difference between a program controlling the transition of
> gates and moving electrons and a thought controlling the transition of
> neurons and moving electrons?
>
> Answer: There is no significant difference.
I have occasionally sparred with Mr. Nudds over in comp.lang.c over
his unusual (and misunderstood) conceptions about the nature of the
C language. I've _never_ found ground on which to agree with him.
Having said that, I have to say that his statement above is positively
profound. Computer programs are expressions of ideas - period. I've
never seen that axiom asserted any better or more succinctly than Scott
has above.
Bravo, Scott.
Regards,
Mike Martin
mma...@dazel.com
Benoit Sauvin
Mike Martin <mma...@dazel.com> wrote in article
<01bc29d5$3b69bed0$6ce251ce@marta>...
While I agree largely with the spirit and content, it's still my view
that a language translator is (very much like) a complex mechanical device.
Tim Behrendsen
> : > "Tim Behrendsen" <t...@a-sis.com> wrote:
> : > : So I take it then you are against patents of any kind?
>
> Scott Nudds wrote:
> : > Only patents applying to non-physical objects. Physical objects are
> : > distinct from ideas.
>
> "Tim Behrendsen" <t...@a-sis.com> wrote:
> : Who's talking about patenting ideas? To get a patent, I believe
> : you have to have a working demonstration of the device.
>
> Software is not a device. It is not physical. It is nothing more
> than a pattern.
A blue print for a physical machine is nothing more than a pattern
of lines and symbols, yet it can be patented.
> "Tim Behrendsen" <t...@a-sis.com> wrote:
> : Presumably
> : you are talking about patenting algorithms; what is the difference
> : between a machine represented as levers, gears, and other
> : automata, and a machine represented by gates, flip-flops and
> : moving electrons?
>
> One physically exists, has measurable physical characteristics, can
> not be encrypted or encoded, has a limited number of similar
> implementations etc.
>
> The other does not physically exist, has no measurable physical
> characteristics, can not be encrypted or encoded, and has an infinite
> number of similar implementations.
That is not true. Software physically exists as states in
within flip-flops. I can measure it; what is the number of
1s v.s. 0s? How many bytes is it? What is the time complexity
it takes as a function of its input?
> "Tim Behrendsen" <t...@a-sis.com> wrote:
> : Answer: One you can see with the naked eye,
> : and one you can't. That's the *only* difference.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> What's the difference between a program controlling the transition of
> gates and moving electrons and a thought controlling the transition of
> neurons and moving electrons?
>
> Answer: There is no significant difference. Software ownership is no
> different than ownership of ideas, and both are a direct violation of
> freedom of thought and expression.
Not true. I can have an idea for a physical machine, and it exists
as only as neurons within my brain. That doesn't make it any less
patentable.
Guess what: If I sell plans for a patented machine (i.e., the abstract
idea), and all the parts needed to build that machine, it *still*
violates the patent. It is the same thing as an algorithm (the abstract
idea), and a computer (the "parts" needed to build the machine).
There is no difference.
> "Tim Behrendsen" <t...@a-sis.com> wrote:
> : If an algorithm hasn't been invented by 2030, it wasn't obvious. :-)
>
> If a thought wasn't thought before 2030, it wasn't obvious.
>
> Who does Tim Behrendsen nominate to head the mind police?
You'll note that patents do not prevent you from thinking, only
from selling a patented device, so the question is invalid.
Tim Behrendsen
Mike Martin <mma...@dazel.com> wrote in article <01bc29d5$3b69bed0$6ce251ce@marta>...
> Scott Nudds <af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote:
> > gates and moving electrons and a thought controlling the transition of
> > neurons and moving electrons?
> >
> > Answer: There is no significant difference.
>
> his unusual (and misunderstood) conceptions about the nature of the
> C language. I've _never_ found ground on which to agree with him.
>
> Having said that, I have to say that his statement above is positively
> profound. Computer programs are expressions of ideas - period. I've
> never seen that axiom asserted any better or more succinctly than Scott
> has above.
The fundamental difference is that a patent violation is trying
to sell a physical manifestation of a patented abstract idea. No
one argues that a mind "executing" an algorithm should be a patent
violation, just as I can build a physical machine for my own
personal use of a patented idea.
The point is that a physical manifestation of an idea is subject
to patent, and I say that there is no fundamental difference between
a mechanism made of electrons, gates, and flip-flops, and one made
of "human scale" components.
The only question is the question of obviousness, and I don't think
the art has progressed enough for algorithms to be sufficiently
non-obvious as to be patentable. In the future, however, there will
be a need and a reason to protect the "little algorithm inventor",
just as there was (and is) a need to protect the "little machine
inventor" during the industrial revolution. Algorithms are still
just too obvious to patent.
Benoit Sauvin
As I understand it, the parent thread sparking this discussion deals with
an author's disagreement with precisely what might or might not be covered
by copyright or patent law: somebody manufactured and is distributing what
is alleged to be a clone of a commercially sold computer programming
language. The alleged clone is said to have "extensions" of the commercial
product, and is roughly 100% compatible.0
The idea that an actual LANGUAGE (or, in this case, the sets of
lexicographical conventions within which most programming languages are
constrained for reasons of clarity and available hardware) could be
copyrighted is either laughable or terrifying, depending on your
understanding of the legal climate where software development is concerned
and your assessment of the legal profession's grasp of the software
development industry.
However, the idea that a particular program might be protected by either
copyright or patent isn't. Whether or not the actual gears, cams,
transistors, stepper motors or vacuum tubing can be seen, touched, tasted,
heard or smelled, a language translator is a machine, BUILT on purpose,
with and by calculation using one or more development tools or environments
- it was, in short, engineered, designed, and cobbled together. Most
language translators produce exactly one possible output for any given
input, and will cheerfully do so on any scale.
Behrendsen is probably right: it's too early in the game yet to worry
about whether or not any particular algorithm could or could not be
patented. Neil is NOT right: while he can certainly protect the engine that
HE built, he can't stop other people from coming up with engines that work
more or less the same way, even using the exactly the same fuel (source
file format, composition and structure). In either event, there is
absolutely nothing to stop this old boy from purchasing a copy of Terse,
reading the purely public parts of its specification (that is, read the
owner's manual without trying to reverse-engineer the actual executable
code) and producing a workalike as a series of Perl scripts.
Neil's language translator ITSELF is what I wouldn't touch. That much
belongs to Neil.
If Nudds honestly feels that ownership of a software product is hooey
because of its physical intangibility, he is certainly invited to
mass-produce Microsoft Office for profit. Wouldn't Bill Gates be so charmed
and delighted by such a show of enterprise?
Tim Behrendsen <t...@a-sis.com> wrote in article
<01bc2a5c$aacf4740$87ee...@timpent.a-sis.com>...
> > What's the difference between a program controlling the transition of
> > gates and moving electrons and a thought controlling the transition of
> > neurons and moving electrons?
> >
> > Answer: There is no significant difference. Software ownership is no
> > different than ownership of ideas, and both are a direct violation of
> > freedom of thought and expression.
>
> Not true. I can have an idea for a physical machine, and it exists
> as only as neurons within my brain. That doesn't make it any less
> patentable.
>
> Guess what: If I sell plans for a patented machine (i.e., the abstract
> idea), and all the parts needed to build that machine, it *still*
> violates the patent. It is the same thing as an algorithm (the abstract
> idea), and a computer (the "parts" needed to build the machine).
>
> There is no difference.
>
> > "Tim Behrendsen" <t...@a-sis.com> wrote:
> > : If an algorithm hasn't been invented by 2030, it wasn't obvious. :-)
> >
> > If a thought wasn't thought before 2030, it wasn't obvious.
> >
> > Who does Tim Behrendsen nominate to head the mind police?
>
> You'll note that patents do not prevent you from thinking, only
> from selling a patented device, so the question is invalid.
>
Scott Nudds
Tim Behrendsen (t...@a-sis.com) wrote:
: A blue print for a physical machine is nothing more than a pattern
: of lines and symbols, yet it can be patented.
And it can be measured. Thoughts can not be measured and computer
programs, can only roughly be measured. Change the source code and the
program changes. Who is to say if the two programs, or two thoughts are
the same or different.
Who does Tim Behrendsen nominate to head the mind police?
: > The other does not physically exist, has no measurable physical
: > characteristics, can not be encrypted or encoded, and has an infinite
: > number of similar implementations.
Tim Behrendsen wrote:
: That is not true. Software physically exists as states in
: within flip-flops.
It is entirely true. And software does not "exist" in the states of
flip flops, no more than it exists in the "states" of the neurons of my
mind. The software is encoded into a pattern that is impressed upon the
capacitors in a RAM memory, but this does not constitute physical
existance.
Even if it did, it is obvious that the state of the bits in the RAM
chips may be different from machine to machine. It is easy enough to
invert bits before storage and invert them again when they are recalled.
Does encoded information equal to the initial message? Is storing the
image of a blueprint in a digitized .zip file equivalent to the initial
image? The bit patterns are different. Hence they are physically
distinct from the original in your argument.
: I can measure it; what is the number of
: 1s v.s. 0s? How many bytes is it? What is the time complexity
: it takes as a function of its input?
You can measure one instance of it. I can easily write a program that
encrypts and decrypts data. It is a trivial matter to see that this
applies to any storage media. How many bytes in it? What is a byte? Is
a byte the 9 bits in the computers memory? The 18 flux reversals on the
hard drive? Is it the 4.3 bits in the .zip file? Is the entire file in
memory in the first place? Perhaps only portions of it are, and the rest
is swapped to disk. Perhaps the bits are simply inverted.
And what if the source code is recompiled, or the executable is
converted to another form through some kind of automatic code translation.
A program that replaces all xor ax,ax with sub ax,ax, (as well as other
changes) for example.
Measurement of patterns for the purpose of comparison can only be
easily accomplished when the patterns being compared match exactly. File
compression and encryption - a process essential to any form of data
storage, transmission - so distorts the patterns that they are no longer
comparible.
: Not true. I can have an idea for a physical machine, and it exists
: as only as neurons within my brain. That doesn't make it any less
: patentable.
It makes it totally unpatentable. Patents can not be held on ideas
expressed only in ones mind.
: Guess what: If I sell plans for a patented machine (i.e., the abstract
: idea), and all the parts needed to build that machine, it *still*
: violates the patent. It is the same thing as an algorithm (the abstract
: idea), and a computer (the "parts" needed to build the machine).
It can be argued that the parts can be assembled into the patented
machine. A machine that physically exists. A machine that has physical
properties. A machine that can be measured.
This is not the case for software. Even the same source code can be
compiled with different assumptions and produce different output that is
funcationally equivalent to the original.
Who do you nominate to head the mind police?
: You'll note that patents do not prevent you from thinking, only
: from selling a patented device, so the question is invalid.
So if IBM wishes to clone Windows 95 and give the program away free, it
is not violating Microsoft patents?
Is this what you are saying?
I think Microsoft would disagree with you.
Scott Nudds
Tim Behrendsen (t...@a-sis.com) wrote:
: The point is that a physical manifestation of an idea is subject
: to patent, and I say that there is no fundamental difference between
: a mechanism made of electrons, gates, and flip-flops, and one made
: of "human scale" components.
And as we have seen, a program is not a physical manifestation of
anything. It is a pattern impressed upon some media. A pattern that is
easily converted into an infinite number of other patterns though the
natureal process of storage or transmission, compression or encryption.
Scott Nudds
Benoit Sauvin (sau...@csql.mv.com) wrote:
: While I agree largely with the spirit and content, it's still my view
: that a language translator is (very much like) a complex mechanical device.
The mind is equally complex mechanical device using the same criterion.
Benoit Sauvin
Scott Nudds <af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in article
<5fobv6$d...@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>...
The pity is that I've rarely seen any evidence that Scott Nudds even has
one; if he does, has that mind ever produced a conclusion that much of the
rest of the thinking world could support?
It's going to be mildly interesting to see how Nudds defends his position
on intellectual property. It exists, the rights to ownership of
intellectual property is enforced in civil and sometimes criminal court,
and if Nudds PROMISES to mass-produce for profit Microsoft's intellectual
property in the form of their language products or their office software,
I'll even consider GIVING him my thousand-dollar CDROM writer.
It'd be worth it to have Gates slam-dunk this blathering, trolling,
argumentative, circular, incoherent and omnipresent intellectual void into
jail.
Tim Behrendsen
And a physical machine is a pattern impressed upon physical
components. A pattern that is easily converted into an infinite
number of other patterns through the natural process of painting
it a different color, building it to 50% scale, or building it
out of different materials.
The point is that a program is the physical manifestation of an
abstract algorithm, just as a machine is the physical manifestation
of an abstract set of plans.
Quicksort is still Quicksort whether it's written in C or Pascal.
The Cotton Gin was still the Cotton Gin whether it was made of
wood or metal.
*Ideas* are patented, not machines.
Tim Behrendsen
> Tim Behrendsen (t...@a-sis.com) wrote:
> : A blue print for a physical machine is nothing more than a pattern
> : of lines and symbols, yet it can be patented.
>
> And it can be measured. Thoughts can not be measured and computer
> programs, can only roughly be measured. Change the source code and the
> program changes. Who is to say if the two programs, or two thoughts are
> the same or different.
Thoughts of a physical machine cannot be measured and a built
machine can only roughly be measured. Change the plans and the
machine changes. Who is to say if the two machines, or two thoughts
are the same or different.
Answer: The patent office, a patent attorney, or an infringement
lawsuit as a last resort.
> : > The other does not physically exist, has no measurable physical
> : > characteristics, can not be encrypted or encoded, and has an infinite
> : > number of similar implementations.
>
> Tim Behrendsen wrote:
> : That is not true. Software physically exists as states in
> : within flip-flops.
>
> It is entirely true. And software does not "exist" in the states of
> flip flops, no more than it exists in the "states" of the neurons of my
> mind. The software is encoded into a pattern that is impressed upon the
> capacitors in a RAM memory, but this does not constitute physical
> existance.
The plans for a physical machine are encoded in the components
used in the machine. A physical machine executes its function
by the components acting according to the laws of physics. Software
executes its function by the components acting according to
fundamental transformations of data.
The ideas contained within a physical machine have no more physical
existence than the ideas contained within software, yet the idea
can be patented.
> Even if it did, it is obvious that the state of the bits in the RAM
> chips may be different from machine to machine. It is easy enough to
> invert bits before storage and invert them again when they are recalled.
It is obvious that machines can be taken apart and built into
something else. If I sold plans to convert a machine into a
patented idea, it would be a patent violation. The implementation
details of a machine are irrelevent to deciding whether a patent
violation takes place; the only question is whether an idea
contained within a patent is violated by the implementation.
> Does encoded information equal to the initial message? Is storing the
> image of a blueprint in a digitized .zip file equivalent to the initial
> image? The bit patterns are different. Hence they are physically
> distinct from the original in your argument.
If I run a blueprint through a photocopier, and reduce the image
50%, is it equivalent to the original image? If I color it yellow
with a yellow highlighter, is it equivalent to the original image?
The point is that the idea is what is important, not the physical
manifestation. It is the *idea* that is patented.
> : I can measure it; what is the number of
> : 1s v.s. 0s? How many bytes is it? What is the time complexity
> : it takes as a function of its input?
>
> You can measure one instance of it. I can easily write a program that
> encrypts and decrypts data. It is a trivial matter to see that this
> applies to any storage media. How many bytes in it? What is a byte? Is
> a byte the 9 bits in the computers memory? The 18 flux reversals on the
> hard drive? Is it the 4.3 bits in the .zip file? Is the entire file in
> memory in the first place? Perhaps only portions of it are, and the rest
> is swapped to disk. Perhaps the bits are simply inverted.
>
> And what if the source code is recompiled, or the executable is
> converted to another form through some kind of automatic code translation.
> A program that replaces all xor ax,ax with sub ax,ax, (as well as other
> changes) for example.
>
> Measurement of patterns for the purpose of comparison can only be
> easily accomplished when the patterns being compared match exactly. File
> compression and encryption - a process essential to any form of data
> storage, transmission - so distorts the patterns that they are no longer
> comparible.
Actually, you are correct that the bits are irrelevent, since that
is an implementation detail of the idea. Time complexity, however
is measurable and that is independant of the implementation. The
sequence of steps *is* measurable, just like a chemistry patent.
> : Not true. I can have an idea for a physical machine, and it exists
> : as only as neurons within my brain. That doesn't make it any less
> : patentable.
>
> It makes it totally unpatentable. Patents can not be held on ideas
> expressed only in ones mind.
Yes, if it's "only expressed in one's mind", but not if you create
a prototype. Once you do that, however, it's the *idea* that is
patented, not the prototype. No one can build a machine that uses
the idea, or else the "mind police" come and take you away. :-)
> : Guess what: If I sell plans for a patented machine (i.e., the abstract
> : idea), and all the parts needed to build that machine, it *still*
> : violates the patent. It is the same thing as an algorithm (the abstract
> : idea), and a computer (the "parts" needed to build the machine).
>
> It can be argued that the parts can be assembled into the patented
> machine. A machine that physically exists. A machine that has physical
> properties. A machine that can be measured.
My computer on my desk physically exists, with flip-flops physically
changed into specific configurations to perform physical tasks. The
physical manifestation of these ideas can be measured in many
different ways. My computer no more contains "ideas" than a physical
machine contains "ideas".
> This is not the case for software. Even the same source code can be
> compiled with different assumptions and produce different output that is
> funcationally equivalent to the original.
I can build a machine many different ways, and if it still uses
an idea covered by a patent, it is still a patent violation. If
I change my machine in a "new and novel" way, then it does not
violate a patent.
I can program an implementation of an algorithm in many different
ways, and if it still uses an idea covered by a patent, it is still
a patent violation. If I change my algorithm in a "new and novel"
way, then it does not violate a patient.
How are these different?
> : You'll note that patents do not prevent you from thinking, only
> : from selling a patented device, so the question is invalid.
>
> So if IBM wishes to clone Windows 95 and give the program away free, it
> is not violating Microsoft patents?
> Is this what you are saying?
> I think Microsoft would disagree with you.
Damn straight. I don't know what patents Microsoft holds, but I can
make a Win/95 clone anytime I want, as long as I write it from
scratch, and don't violate any patents.
Patents are usually not very broad, even in physical terms. It is
doubtful that Microsoft holds a patent so broad that it would preclude
a functionally equivalent product from being produced.
Ed Parry
af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
Tim Behrendsen (t...@a-sis.com) wrote:
>: The point is that a physical manifestation of an idea is subject
>: to patent, and I say that there is no fundamental difference between
>: a mechanism made of electrons, gates, and flip-flops, and one made
>: of "human scale" components.
Nudds replied:
> And as we have seen, a program is not a physical manifestation of
>anything. It is a pattern impressed upon some media. A pattern that is
>easily converted into an infinite number of other patterns though the
>natureal process of storage or transmission, compression or encryption.
Just like a movie, right? or a CD or tape? Just patterns recorded on a bit
of media. We all know THOSE are not copyrightable. Ep
Ed Parry - Southern California, USA
Email: au...@lafn.org
Unauthorized amphibians will be toad away.
Craig Franck
"Tim Behrendsen" <t...@a-sis.com> wrote:
>Scott Nudds <af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in article
><5fji0g$f...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>...
>> "Tim Behrendsen" <t...@a-sis.com> wrote:
>> : If an algorithm hasn't been invented by 2030, it wasn't obvious. :-)
>>
>> If a thought wasn't thought before 2030, it wasn't obvious.
>>
>> Who does Tim Behrendsen nominate to head the mind police?
>
>You'll note that patents do not prevent you from thinking, only
>from selling a patented device, so the question is invalid.
It also doesn't apply; Scott gave up thinking long ago, and if
the mind police ever visited, they would just realize "nobody's
home" and move along.
--
Craig
clfr...@worldnet.att.net
Manchester, NH
Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
-- Will Rogers
John Poole
Craig Franck <clfr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<5fqkcq$b...@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> "Tim Behrendsen" <t...@a-sis.com> wrote:
> >Scott Nudds <af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in article
> ><5fji0g$f...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>...
>
> >> "Tim Behrendsen" <t...@a-sis.com> wrote:
> >> : If an algorithm hasn't been invented by 2030, it wasn't obvious. :-)
> >>
> >> If a thought wasn't thought before 2030, it wasn't obvious.
> >>
> >> Who does Tim Behrendsen nominate to head the mind police?
> >
> >You'll note that patents do not prevent you from thinking, only
> >from selling a patented device, so the question is invalid.
>
> It also doesn't apply; Scott gave up thinking long ago, and if
> the mind police ever visited, they would just realize "nobody's
> home" and move along.
For once in my short and miserable life, I'm going to side with Scott.
While I don't think his argument is necessarily valid, I think his
*position* is valid. What's obvious in 2030 isn't necessarily obvious now.
--
jfpoole -- {}
http://www.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca/~jfpoole
George C. Lindauer
Benoit Sauvin (sau...@csql.mv.com) wrote:
:
:
: Mike Martin <mma...@dazel.com> wrote in article
: <01bc29d5$3b69bed0$6ce251ce@marta>...
: > Scott Nudds <af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote:
: > > What's the difference between a program controlling the transition of
: > > gates and moving electrons and a thought controlling the transition of
: > > neurons and moving electrons?
: > >
: > > Answer: There is no significant difference.
: > I have occasionally sparred with Mr. Nudds over in comp.lang.c over
: > his unusual (and misunderstood) conceptions about the nature of the
: > C language. I've _never_ found ground on which to agree with him.
: >
: > Having said that, I have to say that his statement above is positively
: > profound. Computer programs are expressions of ideas - period. I've
: > never seen that axiom asserted any better or more succinctly than Scott
: > has above.
: > Bravo, Scott.
: >
: >
:
: that a language translator is (very much like) a complex mechanical device.
agreed... the TRANSLATOR is a complex mechanical device. But is it going
to write new programs that actually do things without you helping it? So
the PROCESS is not mechanical because there is a non-mechanical factor.
Unless you are going to get into the philosophical basis of things... but
that is an argument for another group.
David
:
George C. Lindauer
Scott Nudds (af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca) wrote:
: Tim Behrendsen (t...@a-sis.com) wrote:
: : The point is that a physical manifestation of an idea is subject
: : to patent, and I say that there is no fundamental difference between
: : a mechanism made of electrons, gates, and flip-flops, and one made
: : of "human scale" components.
: And as we have seen, a program is not a physical manifestation of
: anything. It is a pattern impressed upon some media. A pattern that is
: easily converted into an infinite number of other patterns though the
: natureal process of storage or transmission, compression or encryption.
:
That's is not the issue. Jim would have us believe that the language a
program is expressed in is subject to patent. Sure he can patent his translatorbecauase it is a specific mechanical process... but is that going to keep
me from coming up with another differing specific mecahnical process that
achieves the same results? Jim would have us believe yes he's locked
me out... but if we go that route everyone is dead. We'll start with
artists... they all have to stroke a brush. The second someone patents it,
and they can according to what jim has said because the arm movement is
similar and leads to the same consequences. Think about that for a while...
do we really want a life where people can stop people from coming up with
better ways of doing things just becaue they found A way to do it and intend
to make some money?
David
George C. Lindauer
Ed Parry (au...@lafn.org) wrote:
: af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
:
: Tim Behrendsen (t...@a-sis.com) wrote:
: >: The point is that a physical manifestation of an idea is subject
: >: to patent, and I say that there is no fundamental difference between
: >: a mechanism made of electrons, gates, and flip-flops, and one made
: >: of "human scale" components.
Good thing the mathemeticians didn't know that.. what if pascal or guass or
someone had patented the symbolic representations used to express mathematical
processes? Then we couldn't do anything in math or science with paying the
tax the heirs would impose on us. Do we want to live that way?
David
:
: Nudds replied:
: > And as we have seen, a program is not a physical manifestation of
: >anything. It is a pattern impressed upon some media. A pattern that is
: >easily converted into an infinite number of other patterns though the
: >natureal process of storage or transmission, compression or encryption.
:
: Just like a movie, right? or a CD or tape? Just patterns recorded on a bit
:
Jim Neil
In article <5ftbt0$j0c$3...@hermes-x.louisville.edu>, gcli...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (George C. Lindauer) says:
>That's is not the issue. Jim would have us believe that the language a
>program is expressed in is subject to patent. Sure he can patent his translatorbecauase it is a specific mechanical process... but is that going to keep
>me from coming up with another differing specific mecahnical process that
>achieves the same results? Jim would have us believe yes he's locked
>me out... but if we go that route everyone is dead. We'll start with
>artists... they all have to stroke a brush. The second someone patents it,
>and they can according to what jim has said because the arm movement is
>similar and leads to the same consequences. Think about that for a while...
>do we really want a life where people can stop people from coming up with
>better ways of doing things just becaue they found A way to do it and intend
>to make some money?
You are mis-stating my position. First, I'm NOT talking about patents.
Copyrights protect the expression of something, NOT the idea behind it.
The IDEA is for a Structures Assembly Language. This concept can be
expressed in MANY ways. I choes ONE way to do it and I call thet TERSE.
There are OTHER ways to do it. It is just like a song. Just because
sombody writes a song doesn't prevent others from writing other songs.
They just have to write DIFFERENT songs. Is that os bad? I don't think
so. No one is "dead" because someone writes a good song. Sure you
might kick yourself and say "I should have written it", but so what.
You might also say "I could sing it better", again so what? Write your
OWN song and you won't have a thing to worry about. Or, if you REALLY
feel that you MUST sing that same song, get permission and sing it!
I have NEVER claimed the rights to the *idea* of a Symbolic Assembly
Language. I also have never said ANYTHING about patents.
Jim Neil ___ ___/ ____/ ___ / ____/ ____/
Creator of The / / / / / /
TERSE Programming Language / ___/ ___/ ____ / ___/
http://www.terse.com / / / \ / /
jim-...@digital.net __/ ______/ __/ __\ ______/ ______/ TM
ISBN: 0-9652660-0-1
Jim Neil
In article <5ftbvv$j0c$4...@hermes-x.louisville.edu>, gcli...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (George C. Lindauer) says:
>
>Ed Parry (au...@lafn.org) wrote:
>Good thing the mathemeticians didn't know that.. what if pascal or guass or
>someone had patented the symbolic representations used to express mathematical
>processes? Then we couldn't do anything in math or science with paying the
>tax the heirs would impose on us. Do we want to live that way?
Are you claiming that there is only ONE WAY to represent mathematics?
Theare are MANY ways. I would dare to say that there are an infinite
number of ways to represent mathematics (some better than others).
Byt here again, no one is claiming that you can't write in the language
(dance to the song) you just can't re-write the compiler/manual (re-
record the song).
>: Nudds replied:
>: > And as we have seen, a program is not a physical manifestation of
>: >anything. It is a pattern impressed upon some media. A pattern that is
>: >easily converted into an infinite number of other patterns though the
>: >natureal process of storage or transmission, compression or encryption.
>:
>: Just like a movie, right? or a CD or tape? Just patterns recorded on
>: a bit of media. We all know THOSE are not copyrightable. Ep
I *hope* Ep ment to say that these things *ARE* copyrightable. Unless
he was being sarcastic.
Clayton Weaver
Could you copyright (purely as original text)
"supercalifragilisticexpialidocious"? Would a text that used that word in
a context different from the original violate the copyright?
If yes, then you can possibly copyright the Terse syntax and have legal
protection over the use of that same syntax in other macro assemblers,
even if their source code and implementation of the macros are different.
Recall Borland and the Lotus menu tree. Lotus won in court, Borland
couldn't include the Lotus menuing system as an option without paying a
royalty to Lotus, even though their source code for implementing the
menuing was distinct from Lotus' source code.
Why aren't other programming language syntaxes copyrighted? How portable
is it going to be if platform software vendors refuse to support the
language because they aren't willing to pay royalties on the syntax? How
comfortable are users going to be with a language that they can only buy a
compiler or assembler for from one vendor? They can't even write their own
translator, that could be construed as a violation of the copyright.
The only situation where anyone would considering copyrighting an original
programming language syntax as an asset is a single-platform solution
(which of course this is), and it still may be considered less valuable by
a customer than a syntax that they can get multi-vendor support for. The
author of Terse probably has a defensible position in terms of legal
precedent and statute, but it isn't a very practical position for large
scale marketing.
But this is a small market, right? I assume that anyone that objects to
paying for Terse can just figure out what it does and do the same thing in
different terms, so to speak. So the cost/benefit question is "will it be
cheaper to go around this author and duplicate Terse functionality
ourselves in a different syntax or pay for a license to his product,
assuming that we can profit in the first place from using it."
Regards, Clayton Weaver cgw...@eskimo.com (Seattle)
Shawn MacIntyre
In comp.lang.asm.x86 Jim Neil <jim-...@digital.net> wrote:
: >Ed Parry (au...@lafn.org) wrote:
: >Good thing the mathematicians didn't know that.. what if Pascal or gauss or
: >someone had patented the symbolic representations used to express mathematical
: >processes? Then we couldn't do anything in math or science with paying the
: >tax the heirs would impose on us. Do we want to live that way?
: Are you claiming that there is only ONE WAY to represent mathematics?
: Theare are MANY ways. I would dare to say that there are an infinite
: number of ways to represent mathematics (some better than others).
Exactly, there are infinite ways to represent mathematics, just as a clone
compiler of terse would just be another of the infinite representations of
the translation of the INFORMATION (known to you as the terse language) to
another form of INFORMATION (known to you as x86 assembly language). Ergo
you cannot 'own' the terse language but only the terse compiler, just as
Gauss could 'own' the Gaussian elimination algorithm. Please stop
confusing the menu with the meal. Of all the persons in this thread
you have been singler-aly guilty of a horrid number of abuses of language
(I was always lead to believe that programmers had the understood the
immaterial nature of information better then most. Alas there are
exceptions to every rule.)
Actually I have nothing against you or you making money off of you
discovery (nothing is ever invented) of terse. I program in assembler as a
hobby but during the day I'm a philosophy major specializing in the
philosophy of language, as it just URKS me every time I read your posts,
you've almost made my kill file. On the side of morality, I can see
nothing wrong with someone cloning you compiler and running you out of
business. I personally support the free market and things like copyrights
are directly opposed to true capitalism.
SDM
--
Masturbation causes Blindness!
Alexander Johannesen
Hi, there,
George C. Lindauer wrote:
> Jim would have us believe yes he's locked
> me out... but if we go that route everyone is dead. We'll start with
> artists... they all have to stroke a brush. The second someone patents it,
> and they can according to what jim has said because the arm movement is
> similar and leads to the same consequences. Think about that for a while...
> do we really want a life where people can stop people from coming up with
> better ways of doing things just becaue they found A way to do it and intend
> to make some money?
Sorry, David (are you George or David?) but you are discussing
something completely different here. This is NOT a discussion
of wether we want to live in a "patened world" or not, but about
copyright and trademarks.
Jim (Neil) is NOT trying to stop anybody from creating a
symbolic assembler language, as long as it is not based
on Terse. It is THAT simple. Write "CLUMSY", a symbolic
assembler language that looks like BASIC if you like,
just don't use Terse as your "rolemodel".
( BTW;
If there is ONLY ONE WAY of doing things, then I'm afraid
that that's life. Sorry Sam, and there is nothing we can do
about it. There are hundreds of examples of how a simple patent
or copyright on things can't be re-invented. Like the
ball-point pen. The inventor (the one with a copyright on
it, and a patent) gets 0,01 cents pr. pen made. Or the
tubular suction tape. Or Eagle VMD. OR ... lot's and
lot's of things.
)
We KNOW there are more than ONE way of doing a
symbolic assembly language, and this is one of Jims
points. He wouldn't mind competition. In fact, he
welcomes you to write one. The only thing he wouldn't
like is that you break his copyright.
Jim doesn't want to live in the society you describe above,
and neither do I. This, however, does not change the fact
of the law. It applies for both US of A (where Jim lives) and
Norway (where I live). Jim is very helpful, and shares his
talent of .ASM programming through this group frequently,
but he has chosen to try to live of Terse. Why you all object
to this honest way of making a living, I really don't know.
I've looked at Terse, and it is quite good, although I'm
not an .ASM specialist.
And it doesn't matter wheter we "think about it" or not.
Try to make a program called "Windows", and see what happens.
You can bet your boots that a HUGE pack of lawers will be
breathing down your neck in no-time.
I belive the reasson for this thread is simply that Jim
actually wanted to protect his copyright, and that most
people here belive that we should have it all for nothing.
I think that is wrong, and probably most professional
programmers agree with me on this one.
Either you create _another_ symbolic assembly language,
or you buy Terse. End of story. Now go to bed. :)
Kind regards,
Alexander
--
________________________________________________________
Life is not a mystery to solve, but a puzzle to play
________________________________________________________
Alexander Johannesen (alej...@sn.no)
work: +47 22 20 98 70 priv: +47 22 67 07 79
Herslebsgt. 30 b, 0561, Oslo, Norway
Ed Parry
Shawn MacIntyre <shaw...@valis.worldgate.com> wrote:
>Actually I have nothing against you or you making money off of you
>discovery (nothing is ever invented) of terse. I program in assembler as a
>hobby but during the day I'm a philosophy major specializing in the
>philosophy of language, as it just URKS me every time I read your posts,
>you've almost made my kill file. On the side of morality, I can see
>nothing wrong with someone cloning you compiler and running you out of
>business. I personally support the free market and things like copyrights
>are directly opposed to true capitalism.
>SDM
SM,
I whole heartidly disagree here!
On the side of morality, you do not have a problem with someone stealing his
product, cloning it, then running him out of business? Surely you jest?
Think of it in this way - you write a nice rpogram, you let PC MAG review
it. and they come out with a free clone of it a month later and run you out
of biz. This would not bother you? Especially if you worked several years
perfecting your program, were told by them that they would NOT clone it, and
sold you ad space for your product while working on a free clone of it?
I think you need to rethink your definition of morality. This example
demonstrates what happened to Jim Neil, and is obviously immoral.
It is obvious to me that Tenie Remmel's main objective was to procure a free
copy of Terse to clone it, and nothing else. IE: Why not let a registered
user of it review it for her magazine? This is outright deception with the
intent to steal, therefore immoral.
Tim Behrendsen
Ed Parry <au...@lafn.org> wrote in article <5g1a6f$r...@zook.lafn.org>...
> Shawn MacIntyre <shaw...@valis.worldgate.com> wrote:
>
> >Actually I have nothing against you or you making money off of you
> >discovery (nothing is ever invented) of terse. I program in assembler as a
> >hobby but during the day I'm a philosophy major specializing in the
> >philosophy of language, as it just URKS me every time I read your posts,
> >you've almost made my kill file. On the side of morality, I can see
> >nothing wrong with someone cloning you compiler and running you out of
> >business. I personally support the free market and things like copyrights
> >are directly opposed to true capitalism.
> >SDM
>
> SM,
>
> I whole heartidly disagree here!
>
> On the side of morality, you do not have a problem with someone stealing his
> product, cloning it, then running him out of business? Surely you jest?
>
> Think of it in this way - you write a nice rpogram, you let PC MAG review
> it. and they come out with a free clone of it a month later and run you out
> of biz. This would not bother you? Especially if you worked several years
> perfecting your program, were told by them that they would NOT clone it, and
> sold you ad space for your product while working on a free clone of it?
If it was that easy to clone, then it wasn't worth anything anyway.
Neil provides the perfect reason why the law is set up the way that
it is. He thinks that he should be able to whip something up, and
live off it the rest of his life without ever enhancing it. If he
is worried about people writing a completely original product that
uses his notation, then he should enhance his product past the point
that it's worth someone coming out with a work-a-like product.
If this mythical product reviewed by PC MAG was cloned "in a month",
then the author of that product should get off his lazy butt and
add enhancements to make it worth more than a free product.
> I think you need to rethink your definition of morality. This example
> demonstrates what happened to Jim Neil, and is obviously immoral.
Not obvious at all. It's called the free market at work, and is
why Jim Neil should not expect to be able to live off the same
product for the rest of his life. If he wants to be successful,
then he better realize that there is no free ride, and if TERSE
ever enjoys a modicum of success, workalike products will be a
way of life.
> It is obvious to me that Tenie Remmel's main objective was to procure a free
> copy of Terse to clone it, and nothing else. IE: Why not let a registered
> user of it review it for her magazine? This is outright deception with the
> intent to steal, therefore immoral.
I will not make any claims to be able to read another's mind, as
you seem to be able to do. However, all that is irrelevent.
YOU CAN NOT COPYRIGHT A NOTATION. PERIOD.
Jim Neil can whine all he wants about people stealing from him,
but it's irrelevent to the fact that no one has stolen anything
from him. The only thing he owns is the name TERSE, the TERSE
manual, and the implementation of a TERSE translator.
Henry S. Takeuchi
In <Pine.SUN.3.96.970309...@eskimo.com>, Clayton Weaver
<cgw...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>Why aren't other programming language syntaxes copyrighted? How portable
>is it going to be if platform software vendors refuse to support the
>language because they aren't willing to pay royalties on the syntax? How
>comfortable are users going to be with a language that they can only buy a
>compiler or assembler for from one vendor? They can't even write their own
>translator, that could be construed as a violation of the copyright.
The programming language called Simula 67 was copyrighted by its Norwegian
creators. Yup, more than just the manual.
I believe the manual for the DEC version had this long description of
how *not* to recreate Simula on other systems. If memory serves me
correctly, the creation of translators without permission was specifically
forbidden.
--
Henry S. Takeuchi
ht...@eskimo.com
Seattle, Washington (USA)
Shawn MacIntyre
In comp.lang.asm.x86 Ed Parry <au...@lafn.org> wrote:
: I whole heartidly disagree here!
: On the side of morality, you do not have a problem with someone stealing his
: product, cloning it, then running him out of business? Surely you jest?
I have no problem with anyone doing that to anyone else IN a true free
market economy (the u.s. has a very restricted economy so please don't
sight it as an example), which currently doesn't exist in the world.
Please note when I say clone I am referring to what jim calls 'the
expression of the terse language' not the compiler or the docs even if
they where used to gain knowledge of said expression. And use this
knowledge to produce a translator that performs the same function. NOT just
decompile and changing a handful of things and selling it.
: Think of it in this way - you write a nice rpogram, you let PC MAG review
: it. and they come out with a free clone of it a month later and run you out
: of biz. This would not bother you? Especially if you worked several years
: perfecting your program, were told by them that they would NOT clone it, and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: sold you ad space for your product while working on a free clone of it?
Ahhh... This case is clear not dealing with the right to clone other's
work but rather with a breach of contract, and therefore not analogous to
that which is being discussed. Please stay on topic. (sorry if I sound
rude :( )
: I think you need to rethink your definition of morality. This example
: demonstrates what happened to Jim Neil, and is obviously immoral.
Actually I won't, deep down I believe all software should be free, but
wether that is practical at this time I doubt. On the other hand,
copyright laws are theft, as rational beings we do not have intellectual
property rights and to attempt to creat them percents information from
rightfully exiting out into the general populace where it can be improved.
SDM
jk...@snet.net
On 1997-03-09 shaw...@valis.worldgate.com said:
>Newsgroups: comp.lang.asm.x86,alt.lang.asm,comp.os.msdos.programmer
>impose on us. Do we want to live that way? : Are you claiming
>that there is only ONE WAY to represent mathematics? : Theare are
>MANY ways. I would dare to say that there are an infinite : number
>of ways to represent mathematics (some better than others).
>Exactly, there are infinite ways to represent mathematics
But there are not an infinite number of ways to -efficiently- represent
mathematical notation. I could use the first 1000 digits of PI to represent
the 'addition' operator .. but who would use that system?
>Masturbation causes Blindness!
I can't quite make that out .. its getting a bit fuzzy .. =)
J. Koss (jk...@snet.net)
--: experiment, experiment, experiment
Net-Tamer V 1.08 - Test Drive
Tim Behrendsen
Shawn MacIntyre <shaw...@valis.worldgate.com> wrote in article
<5g255t$7...@scanner.worldgate.com>...
> In comp.lang.asm.x86 Ed Parry <au...@lafn.org> wrote:
> : I whole heartidly disagree here!
> : On the side of morality, you do not have a problem with someone stealing his
> : product, cloning it, then running him out of business? Surely you jest?
>
> I have no problem with anyone doing that to anyone else IN a true free
> market economy (the u.s. has a very restricted economy so please don't
> sight it as an example), which currently doesn't exist in the world.
... on the one hand you believe in the free market ...
> : I think you need to rethink your definition of morality. This example
> : demonstrates what happened to Jim Neil, and is obviously immoral.
>
> Actually I won't, deep down I believe all software should be free, but
> wether that is practical at this time I doubt. On the other hand,
>[snip]
... and yet deep down you want a communistic model for software?
You really should make up your mind! :-)
Andrew Gierth
>>>>> "Henry" == Henry S Takeuchi <ht...@eskimo.com> writes:
Henry> The programming language called Simula 67 was copyrighted by
Henry> its Norwegian creators. Yup, more than just the manual. I
Henry> believe the manual for the DEC version had this long
Henry> description of how *not* to recreate Simula on other systems.
Henry> If memory serves me correctly, the creation of translators
Henry> without permission was specifically forbidden.
Was this ever challenged?
--
Andrew.
Shawn MacIntyre
In comp.lang.asm.x86 Tim Behrendsen <t...@a-sis.com> wrote:
: Shawn MacIntyre <shaw...@valis.worldgate.com> wrote in article
: <5g255t$7...@scanner.worldgate.com>...
: > In comp.lang.asm.x86 Ed Parry <au...@lafn.org> wrote:
: > : I whole heartidly disagree here!
: > market economy (the u.s. has a very restricted economy so please don't
: > sight it as an example), which currently doesn't exist in the world.
: ... on the one hand you believe in the free market ...
: You really should make up your mind! :-)
No no no! Please don't confuse capitalism with a free market system! They
are completely different thing dis-spite the many attempts misappropriate
the latter term. For example, you could have a free mark without money as
long as there were not any restrictions on trade between individuals (ie.
taxes, tariffs, copyright laws, and other bad things). Yet said system
would NOT be an example of capitalism, as capitalism inherently needs some
general currency of exchange, ie. capital. Though the two share the
profit motive they are very different. The main difference comes between
the two is that capitalism is based on privilege and control, and that a
free market system is based solely on competition and profit. Now do you
support a free market system or a capitalist system?
As for free software, I will give two answers showing that it is not
communistic to have free software: A) Argument from confusion and
B) Argument from the immaterial.
A) ===> When I said 'software should be free' I should have said software
shouldn't be bound by laws and regulations. This was a mistake on my
part, and I apologize. Freedom in my private dictionary has nothing to
do with money. What is so communistic about that?
B) ===> Do you believe that we should make laws on what God(ess) can and
can not do? And Do you believe we should be enforcing these laws? Giving
certain faiths exclusive rights to worship a certain deity or use a
certain holy book? I doubt you do, and this is because you recognize
that rational beings have no domain over the immaterial. Here we have
Jim, high priest of the terse god(ess?), demanding that he alone should
control all derived faiths . Remind you of the Catholic church before
Luther? It should. Since software is a perfect example of an immaterial
object this case is completely analogous (money is another immaterial
object, if you have doubts compare a conter-fit bill and a bill from the
federal reserve, what is the difference?) Since it has been shown
repeatedly the proof of the immaterial nature of software is left up to
the reader. ;-) As for Fr. Jim's song analogy, again the copyright
covers only the representation the song, by copying a tape I am NOT
copying the song I AM copying the tape, otherwise when you get a song
stuck in you head you would be in conflict with the law (Is this Jim's
next move?).
Well..I think that's enough typing for now!
SDM