Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #23841 > unrolled thread

Re: Disassembly of arrayForth

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Dennis Ruffer <daruffer@gmail.com> - 2013-06-20 21:47 -0700
    Re: Disassembly of arrayForth albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-06-21 14:34 +0000
      Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Luca Saiu <positron@gnu.org> - 2013-06-25 12:01 +0200
        Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-06-25 03:32 -0700
          Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Luca Saiu <positron@gnu.org> - 2013-06-25 12:37 +0200
            Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-06-25 05:01 -0700
              Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-06-25 15:16 +0200
                Re: Disassembly of arrayForth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-06-25 14:06 +0000
                Re: Disassembly of arrayForth "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2013-06-26 15:58 +1000
                  Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-06-26 03:25 -0500
                  Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-06-27 15:56 +0200
              Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Luca Saiu <positron@gnu.org> - 2013-06-25 17:05 +0200
                Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Luca Saiu <positron@gnu.org> - 2013-06-25 17:07 +0200
                Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-06-25 10:00 -0700
                  Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Luca Saiu <positron@gnu.org> - 2013-06-25 21:08 +0200
                  Re: Disassembly of arrayForth hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-08-10 11:43 -0700
                    Re: Disassembly of arrayForth "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-08-10 21:17 +0100
                    Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-08-10 23:23 +0200
                      Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-08-11 02:13 -0500
                        Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-08-11 20:40 +0200
                          Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-08-11 17:14 -0500
                          Re: Disassembly of arrayForth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-08-12 13:52 +0000
                      Re: Disassembly of arrayForth hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-08-11 23:58 -0700
                        Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-08-12 15:27 +0200
                          Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-08-12 06:41 -0700
                            Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-08-13 00:36 -0700
                              Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-08-13 23:44 +0200
                                Re: Disassembly of arrayForth "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-08-13 23:40 +0100
                                  Re: Disassembly of arrayForth hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-08-13 21:58 -0700
          Re: Disassembly of arrayForth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-06-25 12:59 +0000
        Re: Disassembly of arrayForth albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-06-28 01:54 +0000
          Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-06-28 00:37 -0700
            Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-06-28 02:53 -0500
              Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-06-28 01:34 -0700
                Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-06-28 04:27 -0500
          Re: Disassembly of arrayForth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-06-28 15:16 +0000
            Re: Disassembly of arrayForth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-06-28 15:43 +0000
              Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Dennis Ruffer <daruffer@gmail.com> - 2013-08-08 20:12 -0700
                Re: Disassembly of arrayForth albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-08-09 17:19 +0000
                  Re: Disassembly of arrayForth Dennis Ruffer <daruffer@gmail.com> - 2013-08-09 18:19 -0700
                    Re: Disassembly of arrayForth "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-08-10 21:45 +0100
      Re: Disassembly of arrayForth hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-08-10 11:52 -0700
        Re: Disassembly of arrayForth albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-08-10 19:10 +0000
        Re: Disassembly of arrayForth "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-08-10 21:34 +0100
          Re: Disassembly of arrayForth hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-08-11 23:17 -0700
            Re: Disassembly of arrayForth "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-08-12 12:15 +0100
            Re: Disassembly of arrayForth "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-08-12 16:34 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#25105

Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> 
>> Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> It's not entirely fair, as RedHat doesn't do the big part of
>>> maintaining all these packages; they do the little part of
>>> maintaining them within their distribution.
>> 
>> That misrepresents what we do, really.  We don't maintain everything,
>> or even the majority of programs in a GNU/Linux system, but we do
>> maintain a lot of stuff.  A lot of GCC is ours, and GDB, and a fair
>> bit of the kernel work.  And I'm porting OpenJDK.  There are lots of
>> other things.  I think we spend more time working on upstream programs
>> than we do customizing packages for our own distro.  I'm pretty
>> confident we give more than we take, but of course it's impossible to
>> prove that.
> 
> The whole point of free software is that everybody takes way more
> than they give.  That's how it works, because taking is much easier
> than giving - giving means developing software, taking just means
> deploying software.

Fair enough.

> The question whether you give more than you take is much more
> complicated.  One problem e.g. with GCC is that the GCC code base is
> IMHO pretty bad.

That's not a problem with the GCC code base itself.  I'm convinced
that any industrial-strength compiler that's been around for a long
while will be difficult to learn.  There's just a lot of stuff there,
and there has to be in order to work with all those languages and
processor architectures.

> I've done some GCC patches in the past to a particular port (Sharc
> DSP), and tried to figure out if I could patch some other problems
> like the computed goto stuff.  My explanation of why GCC is such a
> mess is that Cygnus came up with the business modell of GCC
> maintenance, and to keep competition out, they obfuscated GCC, so a
> good deal of the knowledge how to maintain GCC is now outside of the
> sourcecode, but within the Cygnus team, which is now part of RedHat.

And I am certain that this is a steaming pile of paranoid nonsense.  I
was there, and I assure you that we did our best to make it easy to
understand, if only to give us a chance of understanding it ourselves.
It was hard enough already.

The biggest problem we had was that we could get money for, say, a
particular port, we couldn't get anyone to pay for rearchitecting the
core code base.  So, as it got more complex it inevitably got harder
to maintain.  The big rewrite eventually came with the change to use
Tree SSA for optimization, which was a huge advance in maintainabil-
ity, and made a lot of optimizations possible.  Red Hat did a lot of
the work on that conversion.

These days the knowledge is spread widely.  Many companies work on
GCC.  ARM did their port, Intel do a lot, and IBM, etc. etc.  Code
Sourcery did lots of things.

> I'm not quite sure if it was like that, because during the Cygnus
> days, most of the work was done at Cygnus, but the maintenance
> leader was Richard Kenner, who didn't work for Cygnus.

He wasn't the leader, he was the GCC maintainer.  He got in the way;
one individual just does not scale.  That was not his fault.

> IMHO it's a bad idea if one company maintains a core part of the
> free software world, and GCC is indeed a core part.  This is not the
> Forth world, where a compiler can be maintained by just one person.

Indeed it's not.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25123

Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>My explanation of why GCC is such a mess

Well, I tried to implement something in GCC 1.99, and it was a mess.
I think Richard Stallman can (or could) just handle more complexity
than any of us, and he made use of that in his code.  Chris Fraser
(the Fraser of Davidson-Fraser code generation, which is (or was) used
by gcc) once told me (paraphrased):

 We had a three-page instruction set description and gave it to
 Stallman; a few years later we had it down to one page, and Stallman
 had it up to ten pages.

> I'm not quite sure if it was like that, because during the 
>Cygnus days, most of the work was done at Cygnus, but the maintenance leader 
>was Richard Kenner, who didn't work for Cygnus.  That might have caused too 
>many frictions.  However, the last Kenner GCC (2.95.2) is still the best 
>compiler for Gforth on x86.  Quality went way down with the EGCS series.

The last one released by Kenner was the 2.8 series, and IIRC by that
time egcs was underway.  2.95 derived from egcs, so it's essentially
already under the new regime.  However, I guess that by that time they
had not yet had much opportunity for living out their insanity, so it
was mostly ok (it already does miscompile "x+1<x", however).

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25113

On Saturday, August 10, 2013 2:23:25 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote:
> > In China, there are a lot of entrepreneurs working on the side from their
> > regular jobs; they typically manufacture something in their home and sell
> > it to their neighbors (given the severe shortages of goods in China, even
> > simple stuff like brooms and cooking equipment can be manufactured and
> > sold). Entrepreneurship is highly illegal however.
> 
> We don't write 1970, we write 2013.  About half the Chinese people who 
> aren't just farmers on their own rice paddies are employed by someone, and 
> the other half work as "entrepreneurs".  Well, they usually have a small 
> shop or so.  It is highly legal, and the amount of regulation is small.  
> That's why so many people have planned to work for a few years for a big 
> company, save the money, and return to their village, starting their own 
> business - which they did.  Often, when it is not very difficult to make 
> things, the work is actually organized by small entrepreneurs rather than 
> large companies.  Most blue jeans are sewn by companies with 20 or less 
> employees.  It's not difficult to make a blue jeans.  

I'm well aware that most Chinese manufacturing is done by small companies. There are a lot of people just making stuff in a home workshop. This is why quality varies so much --- because those guys get their raw materials from wherever they can week to week, including recycling from the garbage dumps.

This is not entrepreneurship however. It is still highly illegal to manufacture anything for sale to the general public (your neighbors). All of those small companies that you are describing are selling to the state. It is only legal to make blue jeans if they are for sale to the state, which sells them to America (mostly through WalMart). It is illegal to make blue jeans if they are for sale to your neighbors --- even if the people in your neighborhood are going around half naked, you can't sell them blue jeans that you make, because that is illegal. The Beijing government is really focused on acquiring dollars, but they don't care about the quality of living of their own citizens --- they care about the long run, in which America collapses and China becomes the superpower of the world --- but they don't care about the short term, in which their citizens live in poverty.

> And there is no shortage of goods, either.  China has not actually the same 
> living standard as the US, but the difference is much less than in 1970.  I 
> think you should really get out of your cave; but in this case, too many US 
> citizens just think the world outside the US doesn't really exist, or, like 
> you, they have severely outdated informations.

My information on China, in the sense of talking to a Chinese expatriot, does come from about 1991. Since then however, I have read several books on the subject. There have been changes --- but the idea that China has embraced capitalism is absurd --- the Chinese are almost another species, and they aren't going to change their nature.

The Chinese people on average put 40% of their income into savings. That is as compared to just slightly over 0% for Americans. The reason why they save so much, is because prices are very high in China. Buying consumer goods (blue jeans, etc.) is a big waste of money --- the people save their money rather than throw it away. 

Here in America, because there are practically no tariffs on imports, we can go to WalMart and buy a lot of Chinese-made stuff for very low prices, and we typically spend all of our income and save nothing. The result is that our manufacturing is going out of business because they can't compete on price. Eventually Beijing will pull the rug out from under us, and then we will be in big trouble --- the Chinese products will be available only at high cost, and our own products won't be available at all because our factories are shut down.

We do the same thing to the third-world though, especially in regard to food. Our standard strategy is to dump low-cost or even free food on third-world countries under the guise of "humanitarianism." After the farmers in those countries have gone out of business because they can't compete in price against free food, we pull the rug out from under them by hitting them with high prices for food. At that time, there is a famine because nobody can afford our prices, and the big American corporations swoop in and buy up the land. Then they use the land for growing export crops to be shipped to America --- they don't grow crops that can be used to feed the people of that country --- so the famine continues, despite the fact that the country is mostly good farmland that could easily provide enough food for the people.

> > As a libertarian I am opposed to communism. OTOH, I don't consider the GPL
> > to be bad because I see it as volunteerism.
> 
> Ok, so you now contradict yourself.  But this view is certainly closer to 
> the truth.

I'm not contradicting myself. I clearly said that I think volunteerism is a good thing, but am opposed to forced labor. 

Your response to my post would make a lot more sense if you read through my post first, before you began responding to it --- just firing off opinions as they pop into your head as you read the post, results in a lot of nonsense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25120

hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote:
> This is not entrepreneurship however. It is still highly illegal to
> manufacture anything for sale to the general public (your neighbors). All
> of those small companies that you are describing are selling to the state.
> It is only legal to make blue jeans if they are for sale to the state,
> which sells them to America (mostly through WalMart).

This is complete bullocks.  My chinese girlfriend is the cashier of such a 
not-very-big company, and nothing they sell goes to the state or to America.  
They make and sell paper.  They are not state-owned, the Chinese government 
has mostly subscribed to capitalism with the exception that the big banks 
are still controlled and some legacy and struggling companies they own since 
1948.

> My information on China, in the sense of talking to a Chinese expatriot,
> does come from about 1991.

Which is 22 years ago, and a hell lot of things have changed since then.  A 
big problem with expats is that they remember their country the way it was 
when they left, and don't get an update.  China is changing at a very rapid 
pace.  I'm telling the expats I know to keep up with the changes in their 
homeland.

> Since then however, I have read several books
> on the subject. There have been changes --- but the idea that China has
> embraced capitalism is absurd --- the Chinese are almost another species,
> and they aren't going to change their nature.

But they have never been communists for the last 2200 years, they started 
with that in 1948.  They have indeed embraced capitalism in the meantime, 
though of course in most parts of the country that was after 1990.

This "another species" is for sure racism.  There are only two kinds of 
speciees of men on this planet: morlocks and eloi ;-).  The morlocks are 
ugly trolls living in the underground, and never getting out for a reality 
check.  Unfortunately, someone gave them internet access, so we now know 
they already exist ;-).

> The Chinese people on average put 40% of their income into savings.

Not any longer, that number was from a time where most people went to the 
new factories and saved for starting their shop in their village.  They have 
saved that stuff and went home, and started their shop and invested the 
money.  They are still saving, but most of the savings are for retirement 
now (the social system is poor).

Commodities in China are quite affordable today; though of course the 
overall wealth is still significantly less than in the US.  They managed to 
create substantial domestic growth from consumption; it is not growing as 
fast as before, though.

Japan went through a similar conversion, but mostly failed.  China has the 
advantage of being much bigger, and having enough people to consume the 
goods they make.

> Here in America, because there are practically no tariffs on imports, we
> can go to WalMart and buy a lot of Chinese-made stuff for very low prices,
> and we typically spend all of our income and save nothing. The result is
> that our manufacturing is going out of business because they can't compete
> on price. Eventually Beijing will pull the rug out from under us, and then
> we will be in big trouble --- the Chinese products will be available only
> at high cost, and our own products won't be available at all because our
> factories are shut down.

Yes, indeed.  You'll probably all end up in dept bondage.

> We do the same thing to the third-world though, especially in regard to
> food. Our standard strategy is to dump low-cost or even free food on
> third-world countries under the guise of "humanitarianism." After the
> farmers in those countries have gone out of business because they can't
> compete in price against free food, we pull the rug out from under them by
> hitting them with high prices for food. At that time, there is a famine
> because nobody can afford our prices, and the big American corporations
> swoop in and buy up the land. Then they use the land for growing export
> crops to be shipped to America --- they don't grow crops that can be used
> to feed the people of that country --- so the famine continues, despite
> the fact that the country is mostly good farmland that could easily
> provide enough food for the people.

This sort of things started when England conquered Ireland.

>> > As a libertarian I am opposed to communism. OTOH, I don't consider the
>> > GPL to be bad because I see it as volunteerism.
>> 
>> Ok, so you now contradict yourself.  But this view is certainly closer to
>> the truth.
> 
> I'm not contradicting myself. I clearly said that I think volunteerism is
> a good thing, but am opposed to forced labor.

Well, you first said it's communism, and communism is forced labor, which is 
bad, and then you say the GPL is volunteerism, which is good.

> Your response to my post would make a lot more sense if you read through
> my post first, before you began responding to it --- just firing off
> opinions as they pop into your head as you read the post, results in a lot
> of nonsense.

Maybe you read your nonsense before you post it ;-).

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25122

On Monday, 12 August 2013 14:27:24 UTC+1, Bernd Paysan  wrote:
> hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote:
[snip]

> 
> > We do the same thing to the third-world though, especially in regard to
> > food. Our standard strategy is to dump low-cost or even free food on
> > third-world countries under the guise of "humanitarianism." After the
> > farmers in those countries have gone out of business because they can't
> > compete in price against free food, we pull the rug out from under them by
> > hitting them with high prices for food. At that time, there is a famine
> > because nobody can afford our prices, and the big American corporations
> > swoop in and buy up the land. Then they use the land for growing export
> > crops to be shipped to America --- they don't grow crops that can be used
> > to feed the people of that country --- so the famine continues, despite
> > the fact that the country is mostly good farmland that could easily
> > provide enough food for the people.
> 
> 
> This sort of things started when England conquered Ireland.
> 
> 

Here on CLF no-one seems terribly competent on the subject of economics or history. Perhaps we ought to stick to Forth. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25140

On Monday, August 12, 2013 2:41:43 PM UTC+1, Alex McDonald wrote:
> Here on CLF no-one seems terribly competent on the subject of economics or history. Perhaps we ought to stick to Forth.

You got that right. England never conquered Ireland. Since Ireland was at that time completely Catholic the King wrote to the Pope, asking for permission to go there. He "sold" it to the Pope on the grounds that the Irish were out of control and indulging in a number of "un-holy" practices. As a final sweetener, he offered to raise a tax from the Irish of one penny per adult per year, to be paid to the Church. That tax is still known today as Peter's Penny.

Despite that, Ireland was not officially "planted" until ~1610 under James I. So it was never conqured. The English never arrived with soldiers and weapons. It was (typically of the British) much more subtle than that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25170

Mark Wills wrote:

> On Monday, August 12, 2013 2:41:43 PM UTC+1, Alex McDonald wrote:
>> Here on CLF no-one seems terribly competent on the subject of economics
>> or history. Perhaps we ought to stick to Forth.
> 
> You got that right. England never conquered Ireland.

Whatever, the thing is called "Tudor conquest", so if you say they didn't 
conquer Ireland, you are just twisting words around a bit.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudor_conquest_of_Ireland

During a rebellion at the end of the 18th century, England again did conquer 
Ireland in a very classical conquest (this time not called "conquest", but 
throwing down a rebellion); as result, Ireland afterwards was pretty much a 
colonie of the British Empire, and the good farmland was used to produce 
corn for UK, while the Irish people had to grow potatoes as their own food.  
A few cold and rainy years in 1840 (little ice age), after 40 years of 
disasterous government by UK were sufficient to cause a big famine, compared 
to the total population one of the worst famine in history.

Since both Alex and Mark are from UK, I'm not that much surprised of this 
sort of denial.  It makes me understand why the IRA resorted to throwing 
bombs.  Arguments don't help.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25171

on 13/08/2013 22:44:41, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> Mark Wills wrote:
> 
>> On Monday, August 12, 2013 2:41:43 PM UTC+1, Alex McDonald wrote:
>>> Here on CLF no-one seems terribly competent on the subject of economics
>>> or history. Perhaps we ought to stick to Forth.
>>
>> You got that right. England never conquered Ireland.
> 
> Whatever, the thing is called "Tudor conquest", so if you say they
> didn't conquer Ireland, you are just twisting words around a bit.
> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudor_conquest_of_Ireland
> 
> During a rebellion at the end of the 18th century, England again did
> conquer Ireland in a very classical conquest (this time not called
> "conquest", but throwing down a rebellion); as result, Ireland
> afterwards was pretty much a colonie of the British Empire, and the
> good farmland was used to produce corn for UK, while the Irish people
> had to grow potatoes as their own food. A few cold and rainy years in
> 1840 (little ice age), after 40 years of disasterous government by UK
> were sufficient to cause a big famine, compared to the total
> population one of the worst famine in history.
> 
> Since both Alex and Mark are from UK, I'm not that much surprised of
> this sort of denial. It makes me understand why the IRA resorted to
> throwing bombs.  Arguments don't help.

Hugh seems to press your hot buttons on subjects well outside what
interests most folks here, and there are plenty of newsgroups where these
issues can be discussed. It was a request for you and Hugh to both desist
from long and irrelevant posts attacking each other's understanding of
economics and history; as you can see, it ends up with other people
making equally pointless posts and irritation all round.

> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25174

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 3:40:54 PM UTC-7, Alex McDonald wrote:
> on 13/08/2013 22:44:41, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> 
> > Mark Wills wrote:
> >> ... England never conquered Ireland.
> 
> > Whatever, the thing is called "Tudor conquest", so if you say they
> > didn't conquer Ireland, you are just twisting words around a bit.
> 
> > During a rebellion at the end of the 18th century, England again did
> > conquer Ireland in a very classical conquest (this time not called
> > "conquest", but throwing down a rebellion); as result, Ireland
> > afterwards was pretty much a colonie of the British Empire, and the
> > good farmland was used to produce corn for UK, while the Irish people
> > had to grow potatoes as their own food. A few cold and rainy years in
> > 1840 (little ice age), after 40 years of disasterous government by UK
> > were sufficient to cause a big famine, compared to the total
> > population one of the worst famine in history.

For once, I agree with Bernd. This "throwing down a rebellion" involved killing 50% of the Irish population.

England has a really nasty history. It is for the best that the English empire has largely failed --- England has been holding back the progress of civilization for too long.

Mark Wills is okay though --- I don't blame him personally for England's sins. America has its sins too, and I'm not personally to blame for them.

> > Since both Alex and Mark are from UK, I'm not that much surprised of
> > this sort of denial. It makes me understand why the IRA resorted to
> > throwing bombs.  Arguments don't help.
> 
> Hugh seems to press your hot buttons on subjects well outside what
> interests most folks here, and there are plenty of newsgroups where these
> issues can be discussed. It was a request for you and Hugh to both desist
> from long and irrelevant posts attacking each other's understanding of
> economics and history; as you can see, it ends up with other people
> making equally pointless posts and irritation all round.

So, when I discuss China, this causes the Englishmen in the vicinity to begin apologizing for Ireland??? 

Alex, you are making as much sense as you usually do, which is none whatsoever.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23928

Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>The purpose of the GNU GPL is indeed to have software with no "owners"; but if >you derive a work from another work (which you can, in the case of the GPL), 
>>then *both* you and the original author have copyright over the derivative. 

I would say that the purpose of the GPL is to ensure that software
stays unchained, and that the user's freedoms are not curtailed by
some intermediary.  These freedoms are the freedom to run, copy,
distribute, study, change and improve the software. For more details,
read <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>.

>If copyright is claimed on software, then it has an owner.

It has a copyright /holder/.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23991

In article <kqbpgr$3n9$1@dont-email.me>, Luca Saiu  <positron@gnu.org> wrote:
>> One remark about the copyright though. GPL is all about egoless
>> programming. GPL authors do not need their name in all descendants
>> of their program.
>
>Sorry, this is well-meaning but technically incorrect.  The purpose of
>the GNU GPL is indeed to have software with no "owners"; but if you
>derive a work from another work (which you can, in the case of the GPL),
>then *both* you and the original author have copyright over the
>derivative.
>
>Sometimes the authors may not care, but copyright notices have the exact
>purpose of showing who the author is.  Misattributing authorship is also
>illegal in some countries recognizing "moral rights".  By the way, I
>find it at least a due courtesy to give credit to somebody who did part
>of the work, even setting aside the legal situation.  The author of a
>GPL work isn't "selfish" but she might well be after fame and glory
>after all.  Let her have it, it doesn't cost anything.
>
>> The nice thing about GPL is that it doesn't matter legally who owns
>> the copyright.
>
>It doesn't matter in practice if nobody complains, until there's a
>violation.  The copyright owner is usually the only one who can enforce
>it in court; and the copyright situation of the work has better be clear
>then.

Dennis Ruffer has made a derived work of my ciasdis. Now you say that I
own half the copyright of the derived work? Incorrect.
Dennis Ruffer is the sole copyright owner of the derived work.
If someone violates the copyright of the derived work, Dennis can take
him to court. He has no need to consult me, or the people whose work I
used, or the giants on whose shoulders those people stand.

You are confusing this with the situation where a group people
collaborate. Then it is better to have the copyright transfered to a
foundation like the FSF.

That is the reason I urge Dennis to take full ownership. The only one
who could possible contest that would be me, and I'm certainly
not going to do that.   In fact I've given him the right to make
derived works by the GPL copyright.
Then it becomes very hard for a violator to generate confusion about
who owns the copyright.

>
>Regards,
>
>--
>Luca Saiu

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23996

This is why (IMO) GPL is totally FUBAR. Nobody can even agree on what it actually *means*, as evidenced by this discussion, which is why I have never released a piece of software under the GPL licence.

I also note the words 'owner' and 'ownership' creeping into the conversation! Clearly, if something is to be defended in court, then it must have an owner in order to attribute damages.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23997

Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> This is why (IMO) GPL is totally FUBAR. Nobody can even agree on
> what it actually *means*, as evidenced by this discussion, which is
> why I have never released a piece of software under the GPL licence.

It's easy to understand what the GPL means.  Anyone capable of writing
a nontrivial computer program can understand it.  There are people who
spout about the GPL without bothering to understand it.  There are
also people who deliberately speard FUD.  This seems to be true of all
licences.

> I also note the words 'owner' and 'ownership' creeping into the
> conversation! Clearly, if something is to be defended in court, then
> it must have an owner in order to attribute damages.

That's right.  You have to have standing in law.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24000

If it was easy (or perhaps I should say "clear") then there wouldn't be this constant and eternal debate!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24001

Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> If it was easy (or perhaps I should say "clear") then there wouldn't
> be this constant and eternal debate!

There will always be idiots.  There are people who don't believe in
evolution.  That's not because evolution is unclear.  Just like
evolution, there is no debate about what the GPL means: there is only
truth and FUD.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24010

albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes:
>Dennis Ruffer has made a derived work of my ciasdis. Now you say that I
>own half the copyright of the derived work?

Copyright law says that you both have copyright in the derived work
(if both your and Dennis Ruffer's contributions are "signficant" wrt
copyright).  So you both have to agree on what to do with the work, or
both of you can just do what's possible under "fair use" rules.
Anyway, there are no halves; you may agree to split the income from
the derived work in half, if you want, but that's just an agreement
among you.

> Incorrect.
>Dennis Ruffer is the sole copyright owner of the derived work.

Ok, you may also disclaim the copyright over your contributions,
making Dennis Ruffer the sole copyright holder (unless there are
contributions by other people who don't disclaim copyright).

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24011

anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes:
>> Incorrect.
>>Dennis Ruffer is the sole copyright owner of the derived work.
>
>Ok, you may also disclaim the copyright over your contributions,
>making Dennis Ruffer the sole copyright holder (unless there are
>contributions by other people who don't disclaim copyright).

Or you could transfer the copyright for your work to Dennis Ruffer
(but that would also affect your original version, not just the
derived work).  If you do that, Dennis Ruffers has better legal
standing in a court case than if your contribution is copyrighted by
you or if you disclaim copyright.  It's not clear if that difference
in legal standing really matters.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25084

Well, glad to see that you all are so enthused about GPL that you didn't notice that I didn't use it.  I used a MIPS license specifically to avoid all the GPL nonsense.  My reading of the GPL makes me believe that I still had to include Albert's GPL, but I certainly would never care to defend its terms.  That would fall to Albert if he cares to do so.

DaR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25088

In article <06994dde-9c77-44bf-bf09-58967b77258f@googlegroups.com>,
Dennis Ruffer  <daruffer@gmail.com> wrote:
>Well, glad to see that you all are so enthused about GPL that you didn't
>notice that I didn't use it.  I used a MIPS license specifically to
>avoid all the GPL nonsense.  My reading of the GPL makes me believe that
>I still had to include Albert's GPL, but I certainly would never care to
>defend its terms.  That would fall to Albert if he cares to do so.

If you distribute a derivation of a GPL-ed work (as I think you do),
you're bound to do it under GPL. By using an MIPS license you cannot
give Microsoft the right to hijack ciasdis and distribute it without
source, not for the original, and not for the derived work.

If you separate out your own source, then of course you can distribute that
under whatever license you choose.

Apparently you think ciasdis has some value. I find it disrespectful to
call the license I choose (with care and conviction) "GPL-nonsense".

>
>DaR

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25092

On Friday, August 9, 2013 10:19:38 AM UTC-7, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In article <06994dde-9c77-44bf-bf09-58967b77258f@googlegroups.com>,
> Dennis Ruffer  <daruffer@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >Well, glad to see that you all are so enthused about GPL that you didn't
> >notice that I didn't use it.  I used a MIPS license specifically to
> >avoid all the GPL nonsense.  My reading of the GPL makes me believe that
> >I still had to include Albert's GPL, but I certainly would never care to
> >defend its terms.  That would fall to Albert if he cares to do so.
> 
> If you distribute a derivation of a GPL-ed work (as I think you do),
> you're bound to do it under GPL. By using an MIPS license you cannot
> give Microsoft the right to hijack ciasdis and distribute it without
> source, not for the original, and not for the derived work.
> 
> If you separate out your own source, then of course you can distribute that
> under whatever license you choose.
> 

I believe I did separate my code in sections 1, 2 and 4 from your code in section 3.  My license is in section 2.1, yours is in section 3.1.

> 
> Apparently you think ciasdis has some value. I find it disrespectful to
> call the license I choose (with care and conviction) "GPL-nonsense".
> 

I'm sorry that you consider my opinion disrespectful.  I have the utmost respect for you and your ciasdis code.  I just do not share your opinion of GPL.

DaR

> 
> >DaR
> 
> Groetjes Albert
> -- 
> Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
> Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
> albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web