Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #151935 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-05-01 22:19 -0700 |
| Last post | 2020-05-18 13:25 +1200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 188 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-01 22:19 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 01:24 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 01:56 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 02:06 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment shi84516584@gmail.com - 2020-05-19 17:53 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 02:07 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 02:23 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment shi84516584@gmail.com - 2020-05-19 17:55 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-02 11:05 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 02:14 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-03 22:33 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-03 16:18 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-04 00:35 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-03 17:54 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-05-03 18:38 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-03 18:51 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-04 09:36 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 08:48 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 01:12 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-04 15:16 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 06:21 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-04 15:40 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 07:12 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-04 14:47 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 07:08 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 08:12 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2020-05-05 11:36 -0500
Re: pure C90 environment James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-05-19 11:25 -0400
Re: pure C90 environment James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-05-19 11:39 -0400
Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 08:45 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 17:43 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-05-19 12:35 -0400
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 20:14 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-05-19 14:42 -0400
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 12:11 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 21:46 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 13:11 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 14:39 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 13:24 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-20 09:26 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-19 21:11 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-05-19 18:51 -0400
Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-19 23:26 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-20 09:33 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-04 11:49 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 04:00 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-04 17:58 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 10:18 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 13:57 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 12:11 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-02 11:26 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 13:06 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 04:26 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 04:53 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 16:21 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 11:20 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 16:20 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 07:33 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 16:35 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-02 17:30 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 18:37 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-02 18:18 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 19:25 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 19:25 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-05-02 22:45 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-02 23:29 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-05-03 03:55 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-03 13:07 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-05-03 05:24 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-03 05:26 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-03 14:27 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-05-03 22:38 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-05-03 22:06 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-04 00:28 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-03 02:16 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-05-03 16:23 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 16:41 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 16:59 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-05-04 11:01 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-02 11:13 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 03:53 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 05:14 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 06:30 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 12:49 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-13 03:01 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-13 14:43 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-17 06:30 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-17 05:41 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-17 13:02 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-17 22:47 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-17 14:03 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-18 08:54 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 06:11 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 06:51 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 07:12 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-18 15:47 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2020-05-18 16:25 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 07:41 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2020-05-18 17:32 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-18 17:09 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 08:52 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-18 17:05 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 09:18 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-18 19:55 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-05-19 01:42 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 20:35 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-19 16:12 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 10:02 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-19 17:42 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-19 18:16 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 13:00 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 05:09 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-19 15:20 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 08:18 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-19 17:58 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 10:45 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-19 19:31 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 11:58 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-19 20:44 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 13:03 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-19 22:34 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 15:41 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-20 00:03 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 16:10 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-20 01:46 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 22:49 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-20 11:26 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-20 04:43 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 16:40 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-19 23:11 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 11:40 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-20 05:48 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-20 06:19 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-20 16:38 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-20 09:15 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-20 09:37 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-20 10:43 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-05-20 10:58 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-20 11:36 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-20 12:37 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 17:43 -0800
Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 17:58 -0800
Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 18:03 -0800
Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 18:29 -0800
Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 19:54 -0800
Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 20:01 -0800
Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 20:04 -0800
Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 21:07 -0800
Re: pure C90 environment Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 23:10 -0800
Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 01:21 -0800
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-03-11 15:26 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 17:18 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 09:52 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-19 17:39 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-19 16:17 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-05-19 22:54 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2020-05-20 10:17 +1200
Re: pure C90 environment Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2020-05-19 16:28 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 17:30 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2020-05-19 19:39 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-18 15:12 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-18 19:51 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 13:02 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2020-05-18 15:52 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-18 17:15 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-18 20:10 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 13:18 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-18 23:21 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 13:21 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 13:12 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-19 16:21 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-18 19:48 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-18 19:47 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 13:23 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-17 13:54 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-17 16:45 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-17 17:27 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-18 14:44 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 08:17 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-18 21:39 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-18 21:58 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 16:40 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-19 00:22 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-19 00:27 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-19 16:10 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 14:59 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-18 20:01 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2020-05-18 13:25 +1200
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-19 21:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ra1i1c$3hi$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #152383 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On 5/19/20 11:43 AM, David Brown wrote:
> > On 19/05/2020 17:25, James Kuyper wrote:
> >> On 5/4/20 3:36 AM, David Brown wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> ... In some
> >>> countries, I could take your "Public domain" software, put my own
> >>> copyright notice on it, and then sue you for copyright infringement if
> >>> you don't pay me a license.
> >>
> >> What you're saying sounds familiar, but also highly counter-intuitive.
> >> Can you provide at least one specific example of a case where someone
> >> who was not the creator of a work successfully sued the actual creator
> >> for copyright infringement? I'm not talking about someone who falsely
> >> claimed to be the creator; I'm talking about cases where the suit was
> >> successful despite the court having accepted as valid the creator's
> >> proof that he was the creator of that work.
> >>
> >
> > No, I can't.
> >
> > Usually, code that is put in the public domain is small and either of
> > little worth, or for functions that code be duplicated fairly easily.
> > Basically, it's rarely worth fighting over.
> >
> > But if you give out your code and say "I renounce my copyrights, and
> > disclaim all ownership of this code", why would you think you have any
> > protection against other people taking the code and doing whatever they
> > want?
>
> Because, as I understand it, only the actual creator of a work has a
> right to hold a copyright on that work (unless the creator has
> voluntarily transferred that right to someone else, including as a
> common special case transferal to the creator's employer). That someone
> has released their creative work to the public domain doesn't allow
> anyone else to honestly claim to be the creator of that work, and
> doesn't transfer that copyright to anyone else. Obviously, someone can
> falsely claim to be the creator of a work, or can falsely claim that the
> copyright was legally transferred from the creator to themselves - I'm
> not talking about such cases. I'm asking about cases where the creator's
> claim to be the creator, and his claim that he has never transferred his
> own copyright to anyone else, have both been accepted as valid by the court.
>
> > There is also the opposite situation. In many jurisdictions, you cannot
> > give away your rights - even if you write "public domain" on the code,
> > you retain the copyright. That means if you are on the receiving end of
> > the public domain code, you have no explicit license to use the
> > software, and no explicit rights. The original copyright owner can
> > change the rights or sue /you/ for using the software without a license.
>
> That's a reason why, to allow the widest possible use of your software,
> it might be necessary to license it. That part I understand.
>
> It's only the possibility of being successfully sued for copyright
> violation when you have adequate proof of the fact that you created it,
> and have not transferred your copyright to anyone else, that seems quite
> odd to me. Releasing to the public domain is not equivalent to
> transferring your copyright to anyone else who wants it. As I understand
> it, such transfers can only occur voluntarily, and only with the
> recipient being specifically identified as such by the previous holder.
What you mean by "succesful" here? Several years ago I read
in Newsweek story that went like following. Startup A is developing
a new medicine. Estabished company B sues A for patent violation.
Court found that there were on violation. Due to legal costs
A run out of money before finishing work. Legally, court case
was unsuccesful for B, but practicaly B got what it wanted.
Concerning putting copyright statement on public domain work, I hope
that such thing will be deemed void by court. But there are interesting
gray areas due to derived works and collection copyright.
IIUC putting several public domain works on single media creates
a collection and creator has copyright to the whole collection.
He can put his copyright statement and recipients may be mislead
and believe that this statement covers each part separately.
And if works are edited in some trivial way copyright for
changes effectively covers whole. If collection is entered
into some copyright registry, even author may have trouble
proving the he does not violate copyright on the collected work.
What licence changes in the above? With typical MIT style licence
"new" derived works should preserve original copyright notices.
If this editor respect this, then proving authoship is much
easier. OTOH if editor removes notices, then he is in violation
of copyright and author may take preventive action. Or, if
author learned about violation only during court case
author can make a couter-claim and has much better chance of
favourable outcome (in particular getting out of the case
whithout spending fortune on legal fees).
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-19 18:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ra1ntr$b53$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152404 |
On 5/19/20 5:11 PM, antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: ... >> It's only the possibility of being successfully sued for copyright >> violation when you have adequate proof of the fact that you created it, >> and have not transferred your copyright to anyone else, that seems quite >> odd to me. Releasing to the public domain is not equivalent to >> transferring your copyright to anyone else who wants it. As I understand >> it, such transfers can only occur voluntarily, and only with the >> recipient being specifically identified as such by the previous holder. > > What you mean by "succesful" here? Several years ago I read > in Newsweek story that went like following. Startup A is developing > a new medicine. Estabished company B sues A for patent violation. > Court found that there were on violation. Due to legal costs > A run out of money before finishing work. Legally, court case > was unsuccesful for B, but practicaly B got what it wanted. That kind of thing is a serious problem. In sufficiently egregious cases, the court could penalize company B for such tactics by forcing it to pay A's legal costs, which would solve that problem, and that remedy is commonplace in many other countries. However, in the US courts are fairly reluctant to do that. However, I suspect that this would be just as much of a problem with a registered copyright as it would be with software released into the public domain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-19 23:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ra1pus$5v8$3@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #152410 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On 5/19/20 5:11 PM, antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote:
> > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> ...
> >> It's only the possibility of being successfully sued for copyright
> >> violation when you have adequate proof of the fact that you created it,
> >> and have not transferred your copyright to anyone else, that seems quite
> >> odd to me. Releasing to the public domain is not equivalent to
> >> transferring your copyright to anyone else who wants it. As I understand
> >> it, such transfers can only occur voluntarily, and only with the
> >> recipient being specifically identified as such by the previous holder.
> >
> > What you mean by "succesful" here? Several years ago I read
> > in Newsweek story that went like following. Startup A is developing
> > a new medicine. Estabished company B sues A for patent violation.
> > Court found that there were on violation. Due to legal costs
> > A run out of money before finishing work. Legally, court case
> > was unsuccesful for B, but practicaly B got what it wanted.
>
> That kind of thing is a serious problem. In sufficiently egregious
> cases, the court could penalize company B for such tactics by forcing it
> to pay A's legal costs, which would solve that problem, and that remedy
> is commonplace in many other countries. However, in the US courts are
> fairly reluctant to do that. However, I suspect that this would be just
> as much of a problem with a registered copyright as it would be with
> software released into the public domain.
Well, I think that old ATT versus Berkely case is of some relevance
to this: during court process both ATT and Berkely were found to
be violators: ATT put its copyright on several Berkely authored
files (removing Berkely copyright notice), while Berkely put its
own on few ATT ones. The case was settled so that ATT dropped the
case and Berkeley stopped distributing the few violating files. In
alternative universe with Berkeley distributing its files as public
domain Berkeley would be the only violator and its legal position
would be much weaker.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-20 09:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ra2mgm$m2f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152410 |
On 20/05/2020 00:51, James Kuyper wrote: > On 5/19/20 5:11 PM, antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: >> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > ... >>> It's only the possibility of being successfully sued for copyright >>> violation when you have adequate proof of the fact that you created it, >>> and have not transferred your copyright to anyone else, that seems quite >>> odd to me. Releasing to the public domain is not equivalent to >>> transferring your copyright to anyone else who wants it. As I understand >>> it, such transfers can only occur voluntarily, and only with the >>> recipient being specifically identified as such by the previous holder. >> >> What you mean by "succesful" here? Several years ago I read >> in Newsweek story that went like following. Startup A is developing >> a new medicine. Estabished company B sues A for patent violation. >> Court found that there were on violation. Due to legal costs >> A run out of money before finishing work. Legally, court case >> was unsuccesful for B, but practicaly B got what it wanted. > > That kind of thing is a serious problem. In sufficiently egregious > cases, the court could penalize company B for such tactics by forcing it > to pay A's legal costs, which would solve that problem, and that remedy > is commonplace in many other countries. It does not solve the problem - A will have stopped working before B has paid the costs (B can often spend more money on lawyers to delay the payment for years). Conceivably, company A may get started again once the money comes in - but the market will have changed, and maybe the key personnel will have moved on. > However, in the US courts are > fairly reluctant to do that. However, I suspect that this would be just > as much of a problem with a registered copyright as it would be with > software released into the public domain. > It has certainly happened often in the software world. Microsoft have been a master of such techniques as a way of destroying competition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-04 11:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <RqSrG.143863$b23.46937@fx22.am4> |
| In reply to | #152000 |
On 04/05/2020 01:54, Paul Edwards wrote: > On Monday, 4 May 2020 10:35:50 UTC+10, anti...@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: >> - if this is intended to be more than intelectuctal >> excercise, then you probably want something that >> works natively or semi-natively on modern >> hardware > > Pure C90 applications will work on modern > hardware too. I expect "long" to be 64 bits > and "void *" to be 64 bits. I was interested in how well that C90 code compiles on my range of recent Windows compilers. (I doubt whether I would be able to build anything worthwhile.) One initial problem was that it expects __32BIT__ to be defined (to set 'far' to empty) but it wasn't. If I defined it anyway, then some modules compiled, some didn't (eg. missing 'dos.h', but then I don't know how they go together). I've only just started to have a go, I'll try a bit more tomorrow. (Or rather, later today as I forgot to post!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-04 04:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e3fbb178-2daa-4b2a-8f9b-8de714f78a8c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152012 |
On Monday, 4 May 2020 20:49:33 UTC+10, Bart wrote: > > Pure C90 applications will work on modern > > hardware too. I expect "long" to be 64 bits > > and "void *" to be 64 bits. > > I was interested in how well that C90 code compiles on my range of > recent Windows compilers. (I doubt whether I would be able to build > anything worthwhile.) > > One initial problem was that it expects __32BIT__ to be defined (to set > 'far' to empty) but it wasn't. If I defined it anyway, then some modules > compiled, some didn't (eg. missing 'dos.h', but then I don't know how > they go together). Are you compiling the stuff in PDOS "src"? That's where I found a dos.h referenced, but the source file that contains that is not used. You only need to compile things listed in comp5.bat. You will need __32BIT__ defined. Note that PDOS/386 is not a pure C90 application as it has supporting assembler code as well. BFN. Paul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-04 17:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <aRXrG.522964$8qv1.141219@fx12.am4> |
| In reply to | #152012 |
On 04/05/2020 11:49, Bart wrote:
> On 04/05/2020 01:54, Paul Edwards wrote:
>> On Monday, 4 May 2020 10:35:50 UTC+10, anti...@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote:
>
>>> - if this is intended to be more than intelectuctal
>>> excercise, then you probably want something that
>>> works natively or semi-natively on modern
>>> hardware
>>
>> Pure C90 applications will work on modern
>> hardware too. I expect "long" to be 64 bits
>> and "void *" to be 64 bits.
>
> I was interested in how well that C90 code compiles on my range of
> recent Windows compilers. (I doubt whether I would be able to build
> anything worthwhile.)
>
> One initial problem was that it expects __32BIT__ to be defined (to set
> 'far' to empty) but it wasn't. If I defined it anyway, then some modules
> compiled, some didn't (eg. missing 'dos.h', but then I don't know how
> they go together).
>
> I've only just started to have a go, I'll try a bit more tomorrow.
>
> (Or rather, later today as I forgot to post!)
OK, this is getting bit messy. Apparently it uses its own standard
headers. So on one compiler I get problems like 'size_t' not declared in
string.h. In stdio.h, and half a dozen other headers, there is:
#ifndef __SIZE_T_DEFINED
#define __SIZE_T_DEFINED
#if (defined(__OS2__) || defined(__32BIT__) || defined(__MVS__) \
|| defined(__CMS__) || defined(__VSE__))
typedef unsigned long size_t;
#elif (defined(__MSDOS__) || defined(__DOS__) || defined(__POWERC) \
|| defined(__WIN32__) || defined(__gnu_linux__))
typedef unsigned int size_t;
#endif
#endif
So it picks and chooses its compilers. (I assume size_t is not part of C90?)
Some compilers don't define __WIN32__, but do define at least one of
__WIN32, WIN32 or _WIN32. So size_t stays undefined.
The above also seems contradictory if one branch expects __32BIT__ to be
defined, but not __WIN32__ and vice versa.
Apart from size_t, pdos.c doesn't see these names:
pdos.c:334: warning: implicit declaration of function 'getEFLAGSAndDisable'
pdos.c:336: warning: implicit declaration of function 'setEFLAGS'
pdos.c:476: warning: implicit declaration of function 'loadPageDirectory'
pdos.c:486: warning: implicit declaration of function 'switchFromToThread'
pdos.c:767: warning: implicit declaration of function 'enablePaging'
pdos.c:2241: warning: implicit declaration of function 'readCR2'
pdos.c:3049: warning: implicit declaration of function 'call32'
pdos.c:3728: warning: implicit declaration of function '__start'
pdos.c:4714: warning: implicit declaration of function 'inp'
pdos.c:4720: warning: implicit declaration of function 'outp'
It's a while since I glimpsed this side of C, and I think I'm going to
bail out again now ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-04 10:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <43e72f45-50fd-427d-a553-640b815f4868@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152032 |
On Tuesday, 5 May 2020 02:58:56 UTC+10, Bart wrote: > So it picks and chooses its compilers. (I assume size_t is not part of C90?) C90 requires size_t to be defined in those header files you saw. > Some compilers don't define __WIN32__, but do define at least one of > __WIN32, WIN32 or _WIN32. So size_t stays undefined. You should be providing __32BIT__ > Apart from size_t, pdos.c doesn't see these names: > > pdos.c:334: warning: implicit declaration of function 'getEFLAGSAndDisable' > pdos.c:336: warning: implicit declaration of function 'setEFLAGS' > pdos.c:476: warning: implicit declaration of function 'loadPageDirectory' > pdos.c:486: warning: implicit declaration of function 'switchFromToThread' > pdos.c:767: warning: implicit declaration of function 'enablePaging' > pdos.c:2241: warning: implicit declaration of function 'readCR2' > pdos.c:3049: warning: implicit declaration of function 'call32' > pdos.c:3728: warning: implicit declaration of function '__start' > pdos.c:4714: warning: implicit declaration of function 'inp' > pdos.c:4720: warning: implicit declaration of function 'outp' Those are only warnings, and the code is assembler, so you will get link errors for them. > It's a while since I glimpsed this side of C, and I think I'm going to > bail out again now ... I think the code did pretty well, all things considered. :-) BFN. Paul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-04 13:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <877dxr2zbd.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #152032 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> So it picks and chooses its compilers. (I assume size_t is not part of C90?)
size_t is defined in C90. It's declared in <stddef.h> and several other
headers, including <string.h>, <stdlib.h>, etc. (The implementations of
those headers have to play some tricks to avoid multiple definitions.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-02 12:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <r8jh17$ppp$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #151938 |
> I can see the elegance of using pure standard C. C has never been elegant. Even C++, which is _more_ elegant, isn't absolutely elegant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-02 11:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pVbrG.141065$Jj2.73478@fx11.am4> |
| In reply to | #151943 |
On 02/05/2020 11:11, Bonita Montero wrote: >> I can see the elegance of using pure standard C. > > C has never been elegant. > Even C++, which is _more_ elegant, isn't absolutely elegant. > C++ can never look elegant. I think even ASM beats it for looks. But the elegance here is in writing code that works on any compiler and not relying on special features of specific implementations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-02 13:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <r8jk7o$rm3$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #151945 |
> C++ can never look elegant. I think even ASM beats it for looks. It largely depends on the expressiveness how elegant a language is. And C is more expressive than ASM, but C++ is by fare more expressive than C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-02 04:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5905a20d-97fb-4ca9-83eb-5ffba4bf2137@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #151947 |
On Saturday, 2 May 2020 12:06:41 UTC+1, Bonita Montero wrote: > > C++ can never look elegant. I think even ASM beats it for looks. > > It largely depends on the expressiveness how elegant a language is. > And C is more expressive than ASM, but C++ is by fare more expressive > than C. > How expressive and how simple. C++ is very expressive, but hardly simple. Fortran is simple, but not very expressive. C hits a sweet spot, simple enough to learn quickly and to implement as a one man job, but expressive enough for structured programming. It's not expressive enough for object-oriented programming or functional programming.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-02 04:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3e33268f-86ba-45c3-9065-041e7d3f8d2a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #151948 |
W dniu sobota, 2 maja 2020 13:26:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Malcolm McLean napisał: > On Saturday, 2 May 2020 12:06:41 UTC+1, Bonita Montero wrote: > > > C++ can never look elegant. I think even ASM beats it for looks. > > > > It largely depends on the expressiveness how elegant a language is. > > And C is more expressive than ASM, but C++ is by fare more expressive > > than C. > > > How expressive and how simple. > C++ is very expressive, but hardly simple. > Fortran is simple, but not very expressive. > > C hits a sweet spot, simple enough to learn quickly and to implement as > a one man job, but expressive enough for structured programming. It's > not expressive enough for object-oriented programming or functional > programming. c is quite expressive if some use good libraries and good names and bonita opinions on c dont matter (same level of importance and value as imbecile dik opinions)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-02 16:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <r8jvkr$5sd$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #151949 |
> c is quite expressive if some use good libraries and good names > and bonita opinions on c dont matter (same level of importance and value as imbecile dik opinions) Your opinion doesn't count as you're a bloody beginner.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-02 11:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c01b9669-26dc-441c-92bf-f31fc029a57d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #151954 |
W dniu sobota, 2 maja 2020 16:21:22 UTC+2 użytkownik Bonita Montero napisał: > > c is quite expressive if some use good libraries and good names > > and bonita opinions on c dont matter (same level of importance and value as imbecile dik opinions) > > Your opinion doesn't count as you're a bloody beginner. in your low-mind word, im sorry but i think we will not talk and yopu will be treated like dik hodgin by me people who degrade group mentally by trials of enforcing bulshit on this group sre special kind who share syupidity and i dont plan tu support such depressive mental degraders here
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-02 16:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <r8jvjr$5sd$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #151948 |
> How expressive and how simple. Simplicity mostly contraticts expressiveness. > C hits a sweet spot, simple enough to learn quickly and to implement > as a one man job, but expressive enough for structured programming. It's harder to learn C++ than C, but it you've managed it is easier to challenge large program development than in C. It has the better means to structure your work and the code is massively shorter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-02 07:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <430d5ba1-1d9b-426e-ab50-4e1f1d3a1595@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #151953 |
On Saturday, 2 May 2020 15:20:52 UTC+1, Bonita Montero wrote: > > How expressive and how simple. > > Simplicity mostly contraticts expressiveness. > Exactly. It's easy to write a simple language which is not very expressive, and it's easy to design, though not to implement, a complicated language whch is quite expressive. But it is hard to design a simple language which is also expressive. We reserve the term 'elegant" for that feat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-02 16:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <r8k0fg$2ni$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #151955 |
> Exactly. It's easy to write a simple language which is not very expressive, > and it's easy to design, though not to implement, a complicated language > whch is quite expressive. But it is hard to design a simple language > which is also expressive. We reserve the term 'elegant" for that feat. You can see it that way, ... but C certainly didn't win the competition in that sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-02 17:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tehrG.278453$CO1.219175@fx27.am4> |
| In reply to | #151953 |
[Off the topic of pure C90]
On 02/05/2020 15:20, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> How expressive and how simple.
>
> Simplicity mostly contraticts expressiveness.
Remember the strrepl thread? My scripting solution can be expressed like
this:
function strrepl(s, old, new)=
t := ""
while n:=old in s do
t +:= s[1..n-1] + new
s := s[n+old.len..$]
od
return t+s
end
Far more elegant than any of your C++ versions, with fewer dependencies,
/and/ it was faster. Plus build time is essentially zero.
Elegant, expressive, simple. Even if C++ can emulate these types and
operations, the declaration syntax, and the general clutter of the
language, kills it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web