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 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-04 06:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b7ad7b16-64f6-4b83-8a5e-96d0f3eac0ef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152017 |
On Monday, 4 May 2020 23:16:38 UTC+10, David Brown wrote: > it - if you /have/ thought about it and want to call everything "public > domain", fair enough. It seems to me that CC0 is a better choice, > however - that is a marking that has been considered in detail by > lawyers from many countries, rather than just a few programmers.) My work is public domain with CC0 for anyone who prefers that. > You said you want to be able to recreate the computer industry from > scratch. I agree that merely outlining a plan for it would be much less > work. Ok, cool. So that's what I'm working on. Getting the software components ready for when the hardware becomes available. And trying to spell out the required hardware. I assume that there's no problem with C90 that we shouldn't take that as a given. BFN. Paul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-04 15:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <r8p60c$7kn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152018 |
On 04/05/2020 15:21, Paul Edwards wrote: > On Monday, 4 May 2020 23:16:38 UTC+10, David Brown wrote: > >> it - if you /have/ thought about it and want to call everything "public >> domain", fair enough. It seems to me that CC0 is a better choice, >> however - that is a marking that has been considered in detail by >> lawyers from many countries, rather than just a few programmers.) > > My work is public domain with CC0 for anyone > who prefers that. > >> You said you want to be able to recreate the computer industry from >> scratch. I agree that merely outlining a plan for it would be much less >> work. > > Ok, cool. So that's what I'm working on. Getting > the software components ready for when the > hardware becomes available. And trying to spell > out the required hardware. > > I assume that there's no problem with C90 that > we shouldn't take that as a given. > As I said before, I still don't really understand your aims here or what you mean by a "C90 environment". For my own coding, I really dislike having to go back to C90 instead of C99, and can't understand why anyone would /choose/ to use C90, but you are doing all this for your own reasons, not for my use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-04 07:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <64ed6d5d-7bbd-4820-a9a8-b91ae5fddb6e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152019 |
On Monday, 4 May 2020 14:40:38 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > On 04/05/2020 15:21, Paul Edwards wrote: > > On Monday, 4 May 2020 23:16:38 UTC+10, David Brown wrote: > > > >> it - if you /have/ thought about it and want to call everything "public > >> domain", fair enough. It seems to me that CC0 is a better choice, > >> however - that is a marking that has been considered in detail by > >> lawyers from many countries, rather than just a few programmers.) > > > > My work is public domain with CC0 for anyone > > who prefers that. > > > >> You said you want to be able to recreate the computer industry from > >> scratch. I agree that merely outlining a plan for it would be much less > >> work. > > > > Ok, cool. So that's what I'm working on. Getting > > the software components ready for when the > > hardware becomes available. And trying to spell > > out the required hardware. > > > > I assume that there's no problem with C90 that > > we shouldn't take that as a given. > > > > As I said before, I still don't really understand your aims here or what > you mean by a "C90 environment". For my own coding, I really dislike > having to go back to C90 instead of C99, and can't understand why anyone > would /choose/ to use C90, but you are doing all this for your own > reasons, not for my use. > I think the idea is that Paul provides an operating system and a C90 compiler, that he writes himself, or at least controls. Since he's offering the project for free, it's a guaranteed copyright free platform with no legal or closed source encumberances of any kind. The user programs are then built using C90 compiler. That has the effect that it is easy to port software written in complaint, portable C90, harder to port other software without writing a front end for a compiler that outputs C90. So it's a "C90 environment".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-04 14:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r1VrG.134548$nT6.92193@fx23.am4> |
| In reply to | #152009 |
On 04/05/2020 09:12, Paul Edwards wrote: > On Monday, 4 May 2020 17:36:26 UTC+10, David Brown wrote: >> That is perhaps a /little/ ambitious. You are not the first person to >> want something like this. You'll have the same trouble they all do - >> it's a project that would take tens of thousands of dedicated people, >> without hope of getting any kind of financial backing, and every >> volunteer would have different opinions on how to do it. > > I don't see why understanding computers > sufficiently to be able to OUTLINE a path > to recreating computers as they were in 1991 > would require tens of thousands of people. Recreate all the software, or all the hardware too? The latter I think would be a little harder, if you had to reinvent integrated circuits from scratch, and work your way up to the state-of-the-art in 1991 (which was, what, the 80486 processor with a million transistors?). For the software, you are relying on certain sets of tools to already exist, such as compilers. Those compilers generally need to work on an existing machine with at least a simple OS, providing a file system, keyboard entry and a display. So it sounds like whatever it is you want to recreate, will already need to exist. Otherwise it will be a long process. (I've done something like that, but on a tiny scale. The start point was a bare Z80 (the actual chip; I had to create the circuit for it) with no existing software, and to end up with sofware including a crude editor, assembler, compiler and programs that could work with 3D vector graphics and imaging, all out of nothing. (No OS though.) I couldn't however do it today. Apart from having lost the knack, many parts would be difficult to source.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-04 07:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <38e2b91f-4105-49fc-9610-6605f3a0fcd6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152021 |
On Monday, 4 May 2020 23:47:17 UTC+10, Bart wrote: > > I don't see why understanding computers > > sufficiently to be able to OUTLINE a path > > to recreating computers as they were in 1991 > > would require tens of thousands of people. > > Recreate all the software, or all the hardware too? The hardware too. I'd like to be able to recommend a processor/instruction set to use. Perhaps multiple processors if required. > The latter I think would be a little harder, if you had to reinvent > integrated circuits from scratch, Well I would like to be able to explain to someone else how integrated circuits can be built. Or at least, what they are. > For the software, you are relying on certain sets of tools to already > exist, such as compilers. Those compilers generally need to work on an > existing machine with at least a simple OS, providing a file system, > keyboard entry and a display. > So it sounds like whatever it is you want to recreate, will already need > to exist. Otherwise it will be a long process. Well I was thinking that I would have to enter the assembler code or the machine code for the first C compiler. I could perhaps have that as a printout. If the printout has gone up in flames, then I would need to write it from scratch. > (I've done something like that, but on a tiny scale. The start point was > a bare Z80 (the actual chip; I had to create the circuit for it) with no > existing software, and to end up with sofware including a crude editor, > assembler, compiler and programs that could work with 3D vector graphics > and imaging, all out of nothing. (No OS though.) That's really impressive. BFN. Paul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-04 08:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c92f3307-445b-4a01-873d-a8ac94d33f3d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152022 |
On Tuesday, 5 May 2020 00:09:06 UTC+10, Paul Edwards wrote: > Well I was thinking that I would have to > enter the assembler code or the machine > code for the first C compiler. I could > perhaps have that as a printout. If the > printout has gone up in flames, then I > would need to write it from scratch. Perhaps for some reason I need to transmit the code to another planet using morse code, because I can't send a floppy disk. BFN. Paul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-05 11:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <r8s4p6$ptb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152021 |
On 5/4/2020 8:47 AM, Bart wrote: > On 04/05/2020 09:12, Paul Edwards wrote: >> On Monday, 4 May 2020 17:36:26 UTC+10, David Brown wrote: > >>> That is perhaps a /little/ ambitious. You are not the first person to >>> want something like this. You'll have the same trouble they all do - >>> it's a project that would take tens of thousands of dedicated people, >>> without hope of getting any kind of financial backing, and every >>> volunteer would have different opinions on how to do it. >> >> I don't see why understanding computers >> sufficiently to be able to OUTLINE a path >> to recreating computers as they were in 1991 >> would require tens of thousands of people. > > Recreate all the software, or all the hardware too? > > The latter I think would be a little harder, if you had to reinvent > integrated circuits from scratch, and work your way up to the > state-of-the-art in 1991 (which was, what, the 80486 processor with a > million transistors?). > I went the route the past few years of implementing my own CPU cores in Verilog to run on FPGA's. One may quickly realize that there is a lot of "stuff" going on in a 486, and making an x86 that performed well (and actually fit in an FPGA) would be rather difficult. Both its way of encoding instructions and its way of working with memory pose some serious problems for doing a cost-effective hardware implementation. Is serious lack of registers also makes it needlessly painful (registers aren't quite that expensive). Essentially, to perform well, one needs to design the CPU to be able to hide a memory load or store in pretty much every instruction (thus needing a fairly long pipeline on the execute side of things), as well as dealing with its instruction format (meaning the decode process would also needs a lot of pipeline stages). But, then one would have the problem that now dealing with branch instructions is about like trying to steer a train (one either needs fairly effective branch prediction or else performance is gonna suck). In terms of hardware cost, one would be better off focusing on running x86 via emulation. I went a different route, originally starting with the SuperH ISA, but soon realizing I wanted decent performance, and many aspects of the SH ISA kinda suck on this front (it is a good ISA design if one wants a cheap CPU with fairly good code density, but not so great for performance). So, I did a bunch of hacking on it, but my first effort has been dropped as it turned into a terrible mess. This led to me instead ending up with a RISC/VLIW hybrid design (mostly based on fiddling with stuff, and trying to get decent performance for a modest cost in terms of FPGA resources). Hybridizing the technologies can gain some of the benefits of both, while avoiding some of the limitations. The result is something which (in the simple case) looks like a RISC, but one needs to invoke a bunch of VLIW funkiness to get much performance out of it. Depending on how it is used, performance for my core falls somewhere between a 386 and a Pentium. Its performance and optimization patterns are a fair bit different from an x86 PC, so code written to perform well on a 386 or 486 (very few variables but lots of memory ops) will perform poorly on my ISA. Unrolled code with lots of variables and minimizing explicit memory accesses tends to perform better. Granted, getting from Verilog to actual silicon would require all the chip-fab stuff, which is potentially problematic. The world has been rapidly centralizing most of its (still active) fabs in China and Taiwan (via TSMC), and shutting down fabs elsewhere (most of the various chip companies have essentially gone "fabless"). This is potentially problematic though, since if something catastrophic happens there, the rest of the world could be left mostly without chips (or they have to fall back to GlobalFoundaries, likely resulting in a lot of devices needing to fall back to older nodes, ...). However, running and maintaining fabs requires a fairly high capital investment, and reduces profit margins, ... So it becomes cheaper to outsource, ... > For the software, you are relying on certain sets of tools to already > exist, such as compilers. Those compilers generally need to work on an > existing machine with at least a simple OS, providing a file system, > keyboard entry and a display. > > So it sounds like whatever it is you want to recreate, will already need > to exist. Otherwise it will be a long process. > In my case, I have my own C compiler (targets my ISA), a sort of makeshift OS (thus far, just barely enough "OS stuff" to make other stuff work). There is display hardware, a keyboard interface (PS2, sorta, *), ... *: The interface provided to the FPGA follows the PS2 spec, but the FPGA board has a chip which maps a USB keyboard to PS2. For filesystem, I am mostly using FAT32 on an SDcard, though there are some FS extensions to (potentially/eventually) support some Unix-like semantics. Though, in this case, it would be via a vaguely UMSDOS like system (though differs in that it uses the VFAT LFN's for the filename, with the SFN mostly being used to key things together). There aren't really any good ways to extend FAT32 in ways which don't risk compatibility issues with Windows (and/or involve moving pretty much everything into an opaque VFS). > (I've done something like that, but on a tiny scale. The start point was > a bare Z80 (the actual chip; I had to create the circuit for it) with no > existing software, and to end up with sofware including a crude editor, > assembler, compiler and programs that could work with 3D vector graphics > and imaging, all out of nothing. (No OS though.) > > I couldn't however do it today. Apart from having lost the knack, many > parts would be difficult to source.) > There are some people trying to build a modern mock-up of a C64, but from what I have heard it has ended up sort of hit or miss: Not really compatible with the original C64 software due to different hardware being used; Different CPU (65C816 rather than 6502); ... It seems to me like someone could probably do pretty much an entire C64 in an FPGA though, but it would be kind of lame I guess to just have a box with everything plugged into an off-the-shelf FPGA dev-board. Though, granted, a box with a bunch of stuff wired up to an Arty or similar would still be a step up from a box containing a RasPi and and a permanently mounted USB keyboard or similar... Though, apparently, consumer electronics devices which are basically a slightly larger plastic box holding a RasPi or similar and maybe a few extender cables and similar are sort of a thing now... Well, along with SSD's which turn out to contain an SDcard or USB thumb-stick internals wired up to a SATA bridge interface, typically along with a steel weight and similar, frequently all held together with hot-glue. Though, OTOH, SDcards are getting pretty spiffy; sizes and speeds are pretty competitive with HDDs from 15 years ago... Also, the electrical interface and protocols used by SDcards are fairly straightforward, ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-19 11:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ra0tpe$mic$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152007 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-19 11:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ra0ujl$1ob$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152374 |
On 5/19/20 11:25 AM, 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. I just realized that I wasn't precise enough. Copyright can be transferred; but transfers can only occur with the consent of the current holder. I'm not talking about cases where someone else held the copyright as a result of the creator voluntarily transferring that copyright to the other person. As I understand it, releasing work for which you are the legal copyright holder to the public domain does not, in itself, give those other people the consent they need to become the new legal copyright holder - you seem to be claiming otherwise, at least in some countries. Real world example, please?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-19 08:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <00685027-ceef-4ae9-87c6-c0c6c4dc77b1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152376 |
On Tuesday, 19 May 2020 16:39:43 UTC+1, James Kuyper wrote: > On 5/19/20 11:25 AM, 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. > > I just realized that I wasn't precise enough. Copyright can be > transferred; but transfers can only occur with the consent of the > current holder. I'm not talking about cases where someone else held the > copyright as a result of the creator voluntarily transferring that > copyright to the other person. > There also usually has to be a consideration, which usually means a monetary payment, for a trasfer to be effective. Contracts which confer a benefit on only one party are usually considered to be null and void. That's the difficulty with releasing something into the public domain. Sinc eht public is not making a reciprocal payment to receive the work, the act doesn't have legal force in some jurisdictions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-19 17:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ra0urs$718$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152374 |
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? 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. There are good reasons why few projects like to release code as "public domain", and even fewer projects or companies will accept "public domain" code and use it (except perhaps for very small snippets of code). Basically, I am just suggesting that the OP thinks hard about this, and preferably talks to someone who /is/ a lawyer, before deciding that "public domain" is the way to go. It can make a lot more sense to use a more established and legally tested license.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-19 12:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ra11sj$ilb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152377 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-19 20:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ra17mb$6s5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152383 |
On 19/05/2020 18:35, James Kuyper 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. You could well be both right and wrong here. You could be right that only the creator has a valid claim to the copyright even after having discarded it with a "public domain" notice. But it is naïve to think that something could only be accepted as "valid" by a court in cases where it truly /is/ valid. For civil court cases, courts are supposed to rule on the "preponderance of evidence" - they rule based on what seems most likely. The scope for getting this wrong is, I think, much greater when someone has said "do what you want with this code" compared to code that has a clear copyright message and license. But I have no evidence or cases to demonstrate this. > >> 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. > This part is definitely real - even if my original worries turn out to be paranoia. > 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. > If you explicitly say "this is public domain code", then the voluntary part is covered, but the specific recipient is not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-19 14:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ra19af$v1h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152392 |
On 5/19/20 2:14 PM, David Brown wrote: > On 19/05/2020 18:35, James Kuyper wrote: ... >> 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. > > You could well be both right and wrong here. You could be right that > only the creator has a valid claim to the copyright even after having > discarded it with a "public domain" notice. But it is naïve to think > that something could only be accepted as "valid" by a court in cases > where it truly /is/ valid. Anything is possible once you've postulated that a court can accidentally or maliciously fail to follow the relevant laws. That's perfectly true, but it's equally true if you have a normal copyright or set up a licensing system. It's just as true of a traffic ticket or a murder charge. Because the possibilities when a court fails to follow the law are open-ended, discussing those possibilities is fruitless.- > ... For civil court cases, courts are supposed > to rule on the "preponderance of evidence" - they rule based on what > seems most likely. The scope for getting this wrong is, I think, much > greater when someone has said "do what you want with this code" compared > to code that has a clear copyright message and license. I disagree. A clear statement releasing a work into the public domain is no more susceptible to misinterpretation than a clear copyright notice or a clear licensing notice. It's only unclear statements that are significantly susceptible, and that's just as true of a a copyright or licensing notice. >> 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. >> > > If you explicitly say "this is public domain code", then the voluntary > part is covered, but the specific recipient is not. Except, you haven't voluntarily transferred your rights, you've voluntarily given them up. That's not the same thing. Those rights are not "things" that can be left laying around to be picked up by other people when you give them up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-19 12:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <82edb074-60fb-4bfd-bd21-00ef4e1abdd7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152395 |
On Wednesday, 20 May 2020 04:42:32 UTC+10, James Kuyper wrote: > Anything is possible once you've postulated that a court can > accidentally or maliciously fail to follow the relevant laws. Exactly. > I disagree. A clear statement releasing a work into the public domain is > no more susceptible to misinterpretation than a clear copyright notice > or a clear licensing notice. It's only unclear statements that are > significantly susceptible, and that's just as true of a a copyright or > licensing notice. Yes, and it doesn't get much clearer than an unconditional "released to the public domain". The last thing I want to hear is some judge saying "there is a clear copyright notice on this code, which clearly indicates that the author didn't give up his rights, so the onus is on YOU to prove that you have conformed to the letter of his license". I want to instead be able to say "public domain, case closed". BFN. Paul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-19 21:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ra1d2h$jn6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152397 |
On 19/05/2020 21:11, Paul Edwards wrote: > On Wednesday, 20 May 2020 04:42:32 UTC+10, James Kuyper wrote: > >> Anything is possible once you've postulated that a court can >> accidentally or maliciously fail to follow the relevant laws. > > Exactly. > >> I disagree. A clear statement releasing a work into the public domain is >> no more susceptible to misinterpretation than a clear copyright notice >> or a clear licensing notice. It's only unclear statements that are >> significantly susceptible, and that's just as true of a a copyright or >> licensing notice. Fair enough. It sounds like I was needlessly concerned there. > > Yes, and it doesn't get much clearer than > an unconditional "released to the public > domain". > > The last thing I want to hear is some judge > saying "there is a clear copyright notice > on this code, which clearly indicates that > the author didn't give up his rights, so > the onus is on YOU to prove that you have > conformed to the letter of his license". If you are the copyright holder, then surely the only reason a judge would be involved is if /you/ took someone to court for abusing your copyright or license terms. And it the license terms are laid out clearly (such as by using an existing known license), there shouldn't be a problem conforming to the license. > > I want to instead be able to say "public > domain, case closed". > I am convinced by James' arguments - I am not convinced by yours. And as has been pointed out, neither are many people. Lots of people, projects and companies will not make use of any "public domain" code because of the uncertainties around it, while they /will/ make use of code with free and open source licenses (as long as it suits their licensing needs, of course). BSD-style licensing are usually the ones that are considered to give the most flexibility and freedom to the people getting the code. (That includes the rights to take away such rights from the next party down the chain, which is why some people feel GPL-style is "more free".) When /you/ own the copyright to the code, the only person that can (legally!) limit other people's use of the code, is /you/. The main way to let people know that they can safely use the code is by a license saying how they can use it. An alternative might be to form an organisation with a charter that embodies your aims and philosophies, and assign copyright to that organisation. That way there is not a person owning the copyright - it's all owned by "software-for-everyone.org". This will be particularly relevant if you get more people involved.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-19 13:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cca2164c-78a9-4554-a136-a87ea1d351eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152399 |
On Wednesday, 20 May 2020 05:46:32 UTC+10, David Brown wrote: > > The last thing I want to hear is some judge > > saying "there is a clear copyright notice > > on this code, which clearly indicates that > > the author didn't give up his rights, so > > the onus is on YOU to prove that you have > > conformed to the letter of his license". > > If you are the copyright holder, then surely the only reason a judge > would be involved is if /you/ took someone to court for abusing your > copyright or license terms. I'm talking about the situation where I use someone else's code in a manner I think is allowed, according to my interpretation of the English in their licensing agreement, and being told by a judge that I have misinterpreted it. That's why I want to replace all my software with public domain versions, so that I can say to a judge "public domain, case closed". > And it the license terms are laid out > clearly (such as by using an existing known license), there shouldn't be > a problem conforming to the license. "shouldn't" being the operative word. I'm not interested in arguing the toss with a judge about someone else's English or "implied conditions" or anything else a copyright holder may like to dredge up. Give me public domain or give me death. > BSD-style licensing are usually the ones that are considered to give the > most flexibility and freedom to the people getting the code. No, the most flexibility and freedom is public domain. You can use it as freely as you can use "Hamlet". There's no-one around to take you to court. The previous copyright holder is as dead as Shakespeare. > When /you/ own the copyright to the code, the only person that can > (legally!) limit other people's use of the code, is /you/. The main way > to let people know that they can safely use the code is by a license > saying how they can use it. Or make it public domain, the absolute safest option. > An alternative might be to form an organisation with a charter that > embodies your aims and philosophies, and assign copyright to that > organisation. That way there is not a person owning the copyright - > it's all owned by "software-for-everyone.org". This will be > particularly relevant if you get more people involved. The proper alternative is public domain. As free as "Hamlet". BFN. Paul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-19 14:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <875zcrsiyr.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #152397 |
Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> Yes, and it doesn't get much clearer than
> an unconditional "released to the public
> domain".
>
> The last thing I want to hear is some judge
> saying "there is a clear copyright notice
> on this code, which clearly indicates that
> the author didn't give up his rights, so
> the onus is on YOU to prove that you have
> conformed to the letter of his license".
>
> I want to instead be able to say "public
> domain, case closed".
Then I urge you to take a look at SQLite, a substantial C project
whose source code has been released into the public domain, rather
than arguing about intellectual property laws in a forum dedicated
to discussing the C programming language. (I'll also note that
this public domain code is widely used in free, open source, and
proprietary software projects.)
--
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 | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-19 13:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87eerfsmfv.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #152392 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]
> You could well be both right and wrong here. You could be right that
> only the creator has a valid claim to the copyright even after having
> discarded it with a "public domain" notice. But it is naïve to think
> that something could only be accepted as "valid" by a court in cases
> where it truly /is/ valid. For civil court cases, courts are supposed
> to rule on the "preponderance of evidence" - they rule based on what
> seems most likely. The scope for getting this wrong is, I think, much
> greater when someone has said "do what you want with this code"
> compared to code that has a clear copyright message and license.
By that argument, it's equally likely that someone could falsely
claim ownership of something for which you have a valid copyright.
In my uninformed opinion, it's not worth worrying about -- and this
isn't the place to discuss it. There are forums that discuss
intellectual property.
--
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 | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-20 09:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ra2m3a$jop$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152403 |
On 19/05/2020 22:24, Keith Thompson wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > [...] >> You could well be both right and wrong here. You could be right that >> only the creator has a valid claim to the copyright even after having >> discarded it with a "public domain" notice. But it is naïve to think >> that something could only be accepted as "valid" by a court in cases >> where it truly /is/ valid. For civil court cases, courts are supposed >> to rule on the "preponderance of evidence" - they rule based on what >> seems most likely. The scope for getting this wrong is, I think, much >> greater when someone has said "do what you want with this code" >> compared to code that has a clear copyright message and license. > > By that argument, it's equally likely that someone could falsely > claim ownership of something for which you have a valid copyright. The more paperwork you have, or published history, the easier it is to demonstrate your side of the story. "Public domain" is often concerned with minimising paperwork, and most public domain software has very little tracking of the origin of the source. That makes it easier for a disagreement to go wrong. It is undoubtedly /possible/ to get an incorrect ruling about copyrighted software - but I do not think it is "equally likely". If you have been careful about tracking and labelling the copyrights on your software, you are going to have a better starting point than if you have said "it's all give-away". I have no idea how much of a difference this might make in court, however. I think your suggestion of looking at SQLite was very good. That software is public domain, but the group go to a lot of effort to make sure the legalities are clear and documented, and all the origins of the source are carefully vetted and tracked. This is, I think, what makes it useable by a wider audience than a lot of other public domain software. The OP would do well to read about this. <https://sqlite.org/copyright.html> > > In my uninformed opinion, it's not worth worrying about -- and this > isn't the place to discuss it. There are forums that discuss > intellectual property. > My point was really about encouraging Paul to think about these things and make sure that /he/ has an informed opinion (ideally by checking with people who understand the legalities better than I!). It would appear that he has decided to use a Humpty Dumpty definition of the term "public domain", and thus does not feel the need to check with anyone more knowledgable. I can say that /I/ have learned a bit more, and thought a bit more, as a result of the discussions here. It might be off-topic, and the group might not be experts on licenses, but I think it was useful. For anything more, the OP should look in more appropriate places.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web