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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #29701 > unrolled thread

Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C

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

Contents

  Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C cslarsen@gmail.com - 2014-04-18 06:46 -0700
    Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Pablo Hugo Reda <pabloreda@gmail.com> - 2014-04-18 07:13 -0700
    Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-04-18 16:41 +0200
    Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2014-04-18 11:31 -0700
    Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-19 03:08 -0400
      Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-19 02:59 -0500
        Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-19 04:55 -0400
          Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-19 16:15 -0500
            Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-19 23:47 +0200
            Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-19 22:12 -0400
              Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-20 02:41 -0500
                Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-21 21:16 -0400
                  Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-21 18:37 -0700
                    Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-22 02:48 -0400
                      Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-22 16:15 -0700
                        Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-22 20:58 -0400
                          Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-22 23:36 -0700
                            Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-22 21:38 -1000
                              Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-23 06:14 -0700
                            Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-23 21:10 -0400
                              Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-24 23:09 -0700
                          Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-04-24 00:31 -0700
                            Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-04-26 20:17 -0400
                              Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-04-26 20:29 -0400
                  Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-22 05:07 -0500
                    Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-22 07:54 -0400
                      Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-04-22 05:27 -0700
                      Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-22 08:37 -0500
                        Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-22 21:18 -0400
                          Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-04-23 07:26 +0200
                          Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-23 08:40 -0500
                      Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-04-26 21:52 -0400
                        Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-27 00:18 -0400
                          Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-04-27 01:10 -0400
                            Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-27 01:28 -0400
                              Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-04-27 01:42 -0400
                                Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-27 02:56 -0400
                                  Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-04-27 03:09 -0400
                                    Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-27 05:07 -0400
          Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C jkn_gg@nicorp.f9.co.uk - 2014-04-20 14:02 -0700
            Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-21 01:27 +0000
              Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-04-21 14:19 -0400
                Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-21 20:35 +0200
                Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C andraszsoter@gmail.com - 2014-04-21 11:54 -0700
                Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-21 20:25 -0400
                  Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-21 18:26 -0700
                    Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-22 03:29 -0400
                      Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-22 16:19 -0700
                        Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-22 20:23 -0400
                          Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-22 23:16 -0700
                            Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-27 01:43 -0400
                              Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-27 11:33 +0100
                                Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-28 01:02 -0400
                                  Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-04-28 01:27 -0700
                                    Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-27 22:56 -1000
                                    Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-28 05:42 -0400
                                      Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-04-28 04:24 -0700
                                        Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-28 13:43 +0100
                                          Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-29 08:06 -0400
                                            Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-29 19:22 +0100
                                              Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2014-05-25 16:44 -0400
                                        Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-29 07:54 -0400
                                          Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-04-29 06:06 -0700
                                            Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-29 19:07 +0100
                              Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-04-28 04:17 -0700
                                Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-29 08:20 -0400
                                  Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-04-29 06:09 -0700
            Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothaver.cqm> - 2014-04-21 20:39 -0400
      Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-18 22:24 -1000
        Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-19 05:02 -0400
    Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-19 01:43 -0700
    Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C andraszsoter@gmail.com - 2014-04-21 09:30 -0700
    Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "VisualForth.com" <babruehl@gmail.com> - 2014-05-25 15:31 -0700
      Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-25 16:54 -1000
        Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-25 22:29 -0700
        Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "VisualForth.com" <babruehl@gmail.com> - 2014-05-26 10:45 -0700
          Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-26 09:39 -1000
    Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-25 16:30 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#29818

on 23/04/2014 18:10:13, "Rod Pemberton" wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 02:36:39 -0400, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com>
> wrote:
> 

I'm ignoring some of the words in your reply as it appears that you don't
care for a substantial number of the words in my original question.

>> While the google search you give turns up some interesting names, you
>> didn't answer the question.
> 
> I did answer the question.
> 
> As usual.

Yes, you did.

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

#29805

On Wednesday, 23 April 2014 01:58:00 UTC+1, Rod Pemberton  wrote:
> Just dropping "gpl violation" into Google brings up mentions of:
> Nvidia, D-Link, Boxee, Android, Microsoft, Linksys, Cisco, Samsung,
> HTC, Apple, Skype, Linux, etc.

Indeed. Here's a cracker: 
Best Buy, Samsung, Westinghouse, And Eleven Other Brands Named In SFLC Lawsuit

https://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/

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

#29890

On 4/24/2014 3:31 AM, Mark Wills wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 April 2014 01:58:00 UTC+1, Rod Pemberton  wrote:
>> Just dropping "gpl violation" into Google brings up mentions of:
>> Nvidia, D-Link, Boxee, Android, Microsoft, Linksys, Cisco, Samsung,
>> HTC, Apple, Skype, Linux, etc.
>
> Indeed. Here's a cracker:
> Best Buy, Samsung, Westinghouse, And Eleven Other Brands Named In SFLC Lawsuit
>
> https://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/

I wonder why the companies won't comply when it seems like such a cut 
and dried matter.  Of course the article doesn't say anything about why 
the companies are contesting this.  Maybe they figure they can win by 
outspending the plaintiffs.

-- 

Rick

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

#29891

On 4/26/2014 8:17 PM, rickman wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 3:31 AM, Mark Wills wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 23 April 2014 01:58:00 UTC+1, Rod Pemberton  wrote:
>>> Just dropping "gpl violation" into Google brings up mentions of:
>>> Nvidia, D-Link, Boxee, Android, Microsoft, Linksys, Cisco, Samsung,
>>> HTC, Apple, Skype, Linux, etc.
>>
>> Indeed. Here's a cracker:
>> Best Buy, Samsung, Westinghouse, And Eleven Other Brands Named In SFLC
>> Lawsuit
>>
>> https://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/
>
> I wonder why the companies won't comply when it seems like such a cut
> and dried matter.  Of course the article doesn't say anything about why
> the companies are contesting this.  Maybe they figure they can win by
> outspending the plaintiffs.

I think I found my answer in reading some of the material...  From the 
BrownRudnick article "Is BusyBox Too Dangerous to Use" article, "Landley 
and his colleague Erik Andersen, represented by the SFLC/SFC, took the 
position that the failure to provide source code as required by GPLv2 
(a) automatically terminated the licensees’ right to distribute GPLv2 
code, and (b) could not be cured simply by providing the corresponding 
source after the fact, but required the licensees to obtain the express 
permission of the relevant copyright holders.  The SFLC/SFC and the 
copyright holders apparently demanded many concessions from the 
licensees before agreeing to reinstate the license, including the 
release of source code for a number of proprietary libraries and 
programs, as well as the right to review all of the code for new 
products prior to their release to ensure GPL compliance."

I guess the companies involved would rather fight than switch... or 
agree to these terms.

-- 

Rick

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

#29769

Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 03:41:32 -0400, Andrew Haley  
> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote:
> 
>>> Also, the GPL has more restrictive terms.
>>
>> Surely the GPL has *less* restrictive terms: it's impossible for
>> anyone to make GPL code unfree, or make it into a proprietary product.
>> So, anyone who receives GPL code is free to study it, to change it,
>> and so on.
> 
> That's true only for someone who confuses/conflates "*less*" with "*more*".
> 
> NOT being able to do something with the code, which is what you've
> stated, is more restrictive, not less.

What can possibly be more restrictive than a binary that you're not
allowed to use, study, or change?  That's the only thing that you're
not allowed to do with GPL code.

> You are not free, or "unfree", according to what you just stated, to
> use the code commercially, i.e., for a proprietary product.  With
> MIT and BSD licenses you are free to do just that, and employ
> programmers in the process.

"commercial" does not imply "proprietary".  You can use GPL in
commercial products as much as you like, as you know.  And you can
employ programmers, as you know.

Andrew.

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

#29770

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:07:38 -0400, Andrew Haley  
<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:

> What can possibly be more restrictive than a binary that you're not
> allowed to use, study, or change?  That's the only thing that you're
> not allowed to do with GPL code.
>

Where does that exist?

1) Binaries aren't protected under U.S. copyright law.
    (Apple Computer v. Franklin Computer)

2) US individuals have the right to modify code for their own use.
   (Lewis Galoob Toys v. Nintendo of America)
   (Vault v. Quaid)
   (Narrell v. Freeman)

3) Personal use is a form of fair-use.
   (Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios)

4) Americans have a right of fair-use.
   (Folsom v. Marsh )

5) Defeating fair-use requires proof of harm or that market
    potential would be hurt if use is widespread.
   (Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios )


In regards to prior and past conversations on trivial
changes to Public Domain code being copyrightable:

6) Trivially "similar" derivative works aren't copyrightable.
   (Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp)
   (Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp)
   (Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures)
   (Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp.)

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

8) A derivative work must be sufficiently different.
   (Gracen v. Bradford Exchange)


Rod Pemberton

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

#29772

Franklin lost that case.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/aug/06/applevfranklin

and:

Apple Computer, Inc. appeals from the district court's denial of a motion to preliminarily enjoin Franklin Computer Corp. from infringing the copyrights Apple holds on fourteen computer programs.

. . .

In this case the district court denied the preliminary injunction, inter alia, because it had "some doubt as to the copyrightability of the programs."  . . .   This legal ruling is fundamental to all future proceedings in this action and, as the parties and amici curiae seem to agree, has considerable significance to the computer services industry. Because we conclude that the district court proceeded under an erroneous view of the applicable law, we reverse the denial of the preliminary injunction and remand.

http://www.studentweb.law.ttu.edu/cochran/Cases%20&%20Readings/Copyright-UNT/Copy'ability/apple.htm

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

#29774

Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:07:38 -0400, Andrew Haley  
> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> What can possibly be more restrictive than a binary that you're not
>> allowed to use, study, or change?  That's the only thing that you're
>> not allowed to do with GPL code.
> 
> Where does that exist?
> 
> 1) Binaries aren't protected under U.S. copyright law.
>    (Apple Computer v. Franklin Computer)

No.  The conclusion of that case was that binaries are protected by
copyright.

> 2) US individuals have the right to modify code for their own use.
>   (Lewis Galoob Toys v. Nintendo of America)
>   (Vault v. Quaid)
>   (Narrell v. Freeman)
> 
> 3) Personal use is a form of fair-use.
>   (Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios)
> 
> 4) Americans have a right of fair-use.
>   (Folsom v. Marsh )
> 
> 5) Defeating fair-use requires proof of harm or that market
>    potential would be hurt if use is widespread.
>   (Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios )

This seems to be American law, but I think that similar rulings exist
in many jurisdictions.  However, I take your point: you may be allowed
in theory to do these things, but if you only have a binary it's not
at all easy.  Access to source code is crucial.  All the GPL does is
insist that if you use GPL code, you must give your users the same
rights that you had.

> In regards to prior and past conversations on trivial
> changes to Public Domain code being copyrightable:

I did not claim that trivial changes to Public Domain code are
copyrightable.

Andrew.

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

#29786

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:37:06 -0400, Andrew Haley  
<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:

> However, I take your point: you may be allowed in theory to do these
> things, but if you only have a binary it's not at all easy.

People can disassemble, create a patch, and then release the information
which can be used by others to apply the patch.

> Access to source code is crucial.

No, it's not.  It's just more difficult without it, especially if you
don't know assembly, or you're looking at compiled code.  That doesn't
mean there should be a fundamental right, or general principle that
people have access to whatever they want to change.

> All the GPL does is insist that if you use GPL code, you must give
> your users the same rights that you had.

No, it does far more than that.  It denies people rights too.
It also strongly encourages, nay forces, people to forfit rights
they would rather keep.  Their rights are just important.  If the
GPL wasn't abusive in that regard, trampling the rights of others
for no reason, most of the conflict over it wouldn't exist.  When
was the last time someone criticized MIT or BSD license?  The only
mention is by those in the FOSS movement who are jealous that
Microsoft managed to figure out how to profit from an insignificant
amount of open source code.  Yet, you, and everyone else in the FOSS
movement contradictorily say it's acceptable to profit from GPL code.
But, you can go to numerous forums and find pro-GPL people complaining
that someone made a profit on free GPL code and getting in numerous
arguments over whether that's legal to do.  At best, it's double-talk.
At worst, it's harmful socialism.


Rod Pemberton

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

#29788

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 21:18:02 -0400
"Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:37:06 -0400, Andrew Haley  
> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > However, I take your point: you may be allowed in theory to do these
> > things, but if you only have a binary it's not at all easy.
> 
> People can disassemble, create a patch, and then release the
> information which can be used by others to apply the patch.

I don't think that software companies would like that ;)

> 
> > Access to source code is crucial.
> 
> No, it's not.  It's just more difficult without it, especially if you
> don't know assembly, or you're looking at compiled code.  That doesn't
> mean there should be a fundamental right, or general principle that
> people have access to whatever they want to change.

Non sequitur...

> 
> > All the GPL does is insist that if you use GPL code, you must give
> > your users the same rights that you had.
> 
> No, it does far more than that.  It denies people rights too.

Theoretically it denies right to restrict right that you have
in the first place. In practice it can be abused
as definition of derivative work is questionable.


> It also strongly encourages, nay forces, people to forfit rights
> they would rather keep.  Their rights are just important.  If the
> GPL wasn't abusive in that regard, trampling the rights of others
> for no reason, most of the conflict over it wouldn't exist.  When
> was the last time someone criticized MIT or BSD license?

BSD license allows right to restrict right ;)

  The only
> mention is by those in the FOSS movement who are jealous that
> Microsoft managed to figure out how to profit from an insignificant
> amount of open source code.  Yet, you, and everyone else in the FOSS
> movement contradictorily say it's acceptable to profit from GPL code.
> But, you can go to numerous forums and find pro-GPL people complaining
> that someone made a profit on free GPL code and getting in numerous
> arguments over whether that's legal to do.  At best, it's double-talk.
> At worst, it's harmful socialism.

I think that GPL license cannot be successfully applied to everything.
For example MySQL database. You cannot use it at all for
commercial purposes for free. GPL is abused to prevent users
from using it as free database. Why? Because you can't call
client api functions in your code. Hack you can;t 
even write client yourself as *protocol* is also
licensed as proprietary...
So only option is to use commercial license...
This is because linking with freaking client
library is considered derivative work, which
is nonsense IMO...
So they should decide if database is free or not
in the first place.



-- 
Click OK to continue...

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

#29796

Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:37:06 -0400, Andrew Haley  
> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> However, I take your point: you may be allowed in theory to do these
>> things, but if you only have a binary it's not at all easy.
> 
> People can disassemble, create a patch, and then release the information
> which can be used by others to apply the patch.
> 
>> Access to source code is crucial.
> 
> No, it's not.  It's just more difficult without it, especially if
> you don't know assembly, or you're looking at compiled code.

Well, yes.

> That doesn't mean there should be a fundamental right, or general
> principle that people have access to whatever they want to change.

It's not a fundamental right, but it is the guiding principle of free
software.

>> All the GPL does is insist that if you use GPL code, you must give
>> your users the same rights that you had.
> 
> No, it does far more than that.  It denies people rights too.
> It also strongly encourages, nay forces, people to forfit rights
> they would rather keep.

No, it does not.  The GPL is a bargain with two sides; it is not
compulsory.

> Their rights are just important.  If the GPL wasn't abusive in that
> regard, trampling the rights of others for no reason, most of the
> conflict over it wouldn't exist.  When was the last time someone
> criticized MIT or BSD license?  The only mention is by those in the
> FOSS movement who are jealous that Microsoft managed to figure out
> how to profit from an insignificant amount of open source code.
> Yet, you, and everyone else in the FOSS movement contradictorily say
> it's acceptable to profit from GPL code. 

That was the idea from the beginning:

"Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you
should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that
you should charge as little as possible -- just enough to cover the
cost. This is a misunderstanding.

"Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to
charge as much as they wish or can."

> But, you can go to numerous forums and find pro-GPL people
> complaining that someone made a profit on free GPL code and getting
> in numerous arguments over whether that's legal to do.

Idiots exist.  Some of them post to the Internet.

Andrew.

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

#29894

On 4/22/2014 7:54 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:07:38 -0400, Andrew Haley
> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>
>> What can possibly be more restrictive than a binary that you're not
>> allowed to use, study, or change?  That's the only thing that you're
>> not allowed to do with GPL code.
>>
>
> Where does that exist?
>
> 1) Binaries aren't protected under U.S. copyright law.
>     (Apple Computer v. Franklin Computer)

I really hate to even discuss things with you because you seem to pull 
stuff out of your butt.  This is a perfect example.  Yes, there was a 
District Court ruling in this case in favor of Franklin saying the ROM 
code was not copyrightable, but that was overruled in a separate case 
which was then applied by the Court of Appeals in the Franklin case...

 From Wikipedia -
The district court found in favor of Franklin. However, Apple appealed 
the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 
which, in a separate case decided three days after Franklin won at the 
lower level, determined that both a program existing only in a written 
form unreadable to humans (e.g. object code) and one embedded on a ROM 
were protected by copyright. (See Williams Elec., Inc., v. Artic Int'l, 
Inc., 685 F.2d 870 (1982)). The Court of Appeals overturned the district 
court's ruling in Franklin by applying its holdings in Williams and 
going further to hold that operating systems were also copyrightable.

Notice that no one is using a Franklin computer these days...

-- 

Rick

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

#29897

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 21:52:39 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/22/2014 7:54 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:07:38 -0400, Andrew Haley
>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:

>>> What can possibly be more restrictive than a binary that you're not
>>> allowed to use, study, or change?  That's the only thing that you're
>>> not allowed to do with GPL code.
>>
>> Where does that exist?
>>
>> 1) Binaries aren't protected under U.S. copyright law.
>>     (Apple Computer v. Franklin Computer)
>
> I really hate to even discuss things with you [...]

Then, why are you replying at all? ...

Andrew and Mark already replied to this, correcting me.

> [...] because you seem to pull stuff out of your butt.

I actually found that information many years ago while researching
information on copyrights.  It was on a respectable webpage from a
major U.S. University on the east coaste with a highly respected
legal department.

If they fouled up, as it seems they did, failing to consider appeals,
then you really should blame them.

> This is a perfect example.  Yes, there was a  District Court ruling
> in this case in favor of Franklin saying the ROM code was not
> copyrightable, but that was overruled in a separate case which was
> then applied by the Court of Appeals in the Franklin case...

Wikipedia is wrong.

The actual events are documented here:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/prebuilt/pdf/SchoolLaw/LawReviewLibrary/17_5UBridgeportLRev363(1983-1984).pdf


Rod Pemberton

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

#29899

On 4/27/2014 12:18 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 21:52:39 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/22/2014 7:54 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:07:38 -0400, Andrew Haley
>>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> What can possibly be more restrictive than a binary that you're not
>>>> allowed to use, study, or change?  That's the only thing that you're
>>>> not allowed to do with GPL code.
>>>
>>> Where does that exist?
>>>
>>> 1) Binaries aren't protected under U.S. copyright law.
>>>     (Apple Computer v. Franklin Computer)
>>
>> I really hate to even discuss things with you [...]
>
> Then, why are you replying at all? ...
>
> Andrew and Mark already replied to this, correcting me.
>
>> [...] because you seem to pull stuff out of your butt.
>
> I actually found that information many years ago while researching
> information on copyrights.  It was on a respectable webpage from a
> major U.S. University on the east coaste with a highly respected
> legal department.
>
> If they fouled up, as it seems they did, failing to consider appeals,
> then you really should blame them.

Yes, blame anyone but you, right?


>> This is a perfect example.  Yes, there was a  District Court ruling
>> in this case in favor of Franklin saying the ROM code was not
>> copyrightable, but that was overruled in a separate case which was
>> then applied by the Court of Appeals in the Franklin case...
>
> Wikipedia is wrong.
>
> The actual events are documented here:
> http://www.quinnipiac.edu/prebuilt/pdf/SchoolLaw/LawReviewLibrary/17_5UBridgeportLRev363(1983-1984).pdf

So what in this paper disagrees with the aspect we were discussing that 
was covered by the Wikipedia article?  Sure, there are many mistakes in 
Wikipedia.  But I don't see where the article on this case is wrong in 
the context of this discussion.  From the paper you reference...

"This court of appeals had held in a prior decision that a computer 
program expressed in object code and stored in a video game's electronic 
memory device (ROM) was copyrightable subject matter."

This is exactly what I am talking about.  You can't admit when you are 
wrong.  You just dance around grabbing at any straws you can.  Hmmm, I 
guess that is a bit of a mixed metaphor or at least a strange image... lol

-- 

Rick

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

#29900

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 01:10:28 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/27/2014 12:18 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 21:52:39 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/22/2014 7:54 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:07:38 -0400, Andrew Haley
>>>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:

> Yes, blame anyone but you, right?

You claimed I pulled it out of my butt.  Where exactly did I pull it
out of my butt?  If I had, then you could blame me, but it came from
a respectable source, although I can't prove that nearly a decade later.

>>> This is a perfect example.  Yes, there was a  District Court ruling
>>> in this case in favor of Franklin saying the ROM code was not
>>> copyrightable, but that was overruled in a separate case which was
>>> then applied by the Court of Appeals in the Franklin case...
>>
>> Wikipedia is wrong.
>>
>> The actual events are documented here:
>> [link]
>
> So what in this paper disagrees with the aspect we were discussing [...]

Nothing disagrees with "the aspect we were discussing".  It simply
provides the actual events which are different from Wikipedia.
Wikipedia's statements of the order of events and cases involved
is not entirely correct.

> This is exactly what I am talking about.  You can't admit when
> you are wrong.

This conclusion is the result of a blatant and gross distortion
of what I stated and a faulty assumption on your part.  Nowhere
did I state that the actual events in the pdf supported any of my
original statements.  That was simply a wrong assumption on your
part.  Re-read.  Comprehend.  From past discussions with you, you
simply can't keep the facts straight.

I only stated that the truth of the events was in the pdf and they
differed from what Wikipedia says, which is true.  You should be
able to grasp that from reading the pdf and compariing with Wikipedia's
timeline of events.


Rod Pemberton

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

#29902

On 4/27/2014 1:28 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 01:10:28 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/27/2014 12:18 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 21:52:39 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/2014 7:54 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:07:38 -0400, Andrew Haley
>>>>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Yes, blame anyone but you, right?
>
> You claimed I pulled it out of my butt.  Where exactly did I pull it
> out of my butt?  If I had, then you could blame me, but it came from
> a respectable source, although I can't prove that nearly a decade later.

Ok, blame your bad info on someone else.  Very easy, especially if you 
can't provide the reference.  Where was the common sense error checking 
on this?  We all know that binary data *can be* copyrighted.  So how can 
you believe a 10 year old recollection that disagrees with common sense?

Again, this is the sort of arguing you do rather than a productive 
conversation.


>>>> This is a perfect example.  Yes, there was a  District Court ruling
>>>> in this case in favor of Franklin saying the ROM code was not
>>>> copyrightable, but that was overruled in a separate case which was
>>>> then applied by the Court of Appeals in the Franklin case...
>>>
>>> Wikipedia is wrong.
>>>
>>> The actual events are documented here:
>>> [link]
>>
>> So what in this paper disagrees with the aspect we were discussing [...]
>
> Nothing disagrees with "the aspect we were discussing".  It simply
> provides the actual events which are different from Wikipedia.
> Wikipedia's statements of the order of events and cases involved
> is not entirely correct.

Again, a total red herring.  Yes, Wikipedia has errors, just none of 
them relevant to our conversation.


>> This is exactly what I am talking about.  You can't admit when
>> you are wrong.
>
> This conclusion is the result of a blatant and gross distortion
> of what I stated and a faulty assumption on your part.  Nowhere
> did I state that the actual events in the pdf supported any of my
> original statements.  That was simply a wrong assumption on your
> part.  Re-read.  Comprehend.  From past discussions with you, you
> simply can't keep the facts straight.

Ok, so now you fully acknowledge that the PDF was a red herring having 
nothing to do with your original statements!


> I only stated that the truth of the events was in the pdf and they
> differed from what Wikipedia says, which is true.  You should be
> able to grasp that from reading the pdf and compariing with Wikipedia's
> timeline of events.

Yes, a red herring.  You don't wish to acknowledge that you were wrong 
so you change the topic.

Got it.  Subject changed to something meaningless after you can't find a 
way to defend yourself and you won't admit that you are wrong.

Geeze.  At least we did get to the end of the conversation this time.

-- 

Rick

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

#29903

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 01:42:41 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/27/2014 1:28 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 01:10:28 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Yes, blame anyone but you, right?
>>
>> You claimed I pulled it out of my butt.  Where exactly did I pull it
>> out of my butt?  If I had, then you could blame me, but it came from
>> a respectable source, although I can't prove that nearly a decade later.
>
> Ok, blame your bad info on someone else.  Very easy, especially if you  
> can't provide the reference.
...

> Where was the common sense error checking on this?

Copyright law doesn't change very fast.  Why would I expect the
information to be erroneous when it came from a reputable source?

> We all know that binary data *can be* copyrighted.

Who knows that?  You?  From where?  When?  Andrew's and Mark's reply? ...

I researched it, albeit some time ago.  I don't even have to ask you
if you ever did, you surely didn't.  You've never done anything in
regards to researching copyright issues.  The primary source wasn't
the only source that made the same claim.  Even the pdf I cited cites
one other case where binary data was decided by a court to not be
copyrightable.

So, I'd say my correct 12 out of 13 stated cases is far better than
the the 1 out 1 case you got correct by cheating from Andrew's
and Mark's replies.

> So how can you believe a 10 year old recollection that disagrees
> with common sense?

What recollection?

I simply looked up a few of my old posts on the topic and posted
the relevant court cases.  There are more cases, but none were
relevant to this topic.

> Again, a total red herring.  Yes, Wikipedia has errors, just
> none of them relevant to our conversation.

You're the only one saying or implying they were relevant here.
I'm not.  I didn't.  I haven't.  So, from my perspective, that's
a total comprehesion failure on your part.

>>> This is exactly what I am talking about.  You can't admit when
>>> you are wrong.
>>
>> This conclusion is the result of a blatant and gross distortion
>> of what I stated and a faulty assumption on your part.  Nowhere
>> did I state that the actual events in the pdf supported any of my
>> original statements.  That was simply a wrong assumption on your
>> part.  Re-read.  Comprehend.  From past discussions with you, you
>> simply can't keep the facts straight.
>
> Ok, so now you fully acknowledge that the PDF was a red herring
> having nothing to do with your original statements!

No.

How many times do I have to say this before you comprehend? ...

I posted a link to a record of the factual events.  It differs
 from what's on Wikipedia.  I.e., Wikipedia is wrong, as stated.

>> I only stated that the truth of the events was in the pdf and
>> they differed from what Wikipedia says, which is true.  You
>> should be able to grasp that from reading the pdf and [comparing]
>> with Wikipedia's timeline of events.
>
> Yes, a red herring.  You don't wish to acknowledge that you were
> wrong so you change the topic.

Where did I change the topic?  I provide a link to the truth since
Wikipedia got it wrong.  I stated that very simply so that there
couldn't be any confusion whatsoever: "Wikipedia is wrong."  How
much more clear can one be than that?   The contents of that pdf
is obviously contradictory to my original understanding.  So,
where exactly is the "red herring"? ...

> Got it.  Subject changed to something meaningless after you can't
> find a way to defend yourself and you won't admit that you are wrong.

What do I need to defend myself from?  It's clear that the source of
information I used was in error.  Mark and Andrew pointed that out,
immediately.  There's was no debate over that from me.  The only
debate over that is from you, well after the fact.

So, AFAICT, the only thing I need to defend myself from is your
irrational, ludicrous, and utterly stupid conversation.


Rod Pemberton

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

#29904

On 4/27/2014 2:56 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 01:42:41 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/27/2014 1:28 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 01:10:28 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Yes, blame anyone but you, right?
>>>
>>> You claimed I pulled it out of my butt.  Where exactly did I pull it
>>> out of my butt?  If I had, then you could blame me, but it came from
>>> a respectable source, although I can't prove that nearly a decade later.
>>
>> Ok, blame your bad info on someone else.  Very easy, especially if you
>> can't provide the reference.
> ...
>
>> Where was the common sense error checking on this?
>
> Copyright law doesn't change very fast.  Why would I expect the
> information to be erroneous when it came from a reputable source?
>
>> We all know that binary data *can be* copyrighted.
>
> Who knows that?  You?  From where?  When?  Andrew's and Mark's reply? ...
>
> I researched it, albeit some time ago.  I don't even have to ask you
> if you ever did, you surely didn't.  You've never done anything in
> regards to researching copyright issues.  The primary source wasn't
> the only source that made the same claim.  Even the pdf I cited cites
> one other case where binary data was decided by a court to not be
> copyrightable.
>
> So, I'd say my correct 12 out of 13 stated cases is far better than
> the the 1 out 1 case you got correct by cheating from Andrew's
> and Mark's replies.
>
>> So how can you believe a 10 year old recollection that disagrees
>> with common sense?
>
> What recollection?
>
> I simply looked up a few of my old posts on the topic and posted
> the relevant court cases.  There are more cases, but none were
> relevant to this topic.
>
>> Again, a total red herring.  Yes, Wikipedia has errors, just
>> none of them relevant to our conversation.
>
> You're the only one saying or implying they were relevant here.
> I'm not.  I didn't.  I haven't.  So, from my perspective, that's
> a total comprehesion failure on your part.
>
>>>> This is exactly what I am talking about.  You can't admit when
>>>> you are wrong.
>>>
>>> This conclusion is the result of a blatant and gross distortion
>>> of what I stated and a faulty assumption on your part.  Nowhere
>>> did I state that the actual events in the pdf supported any of my
>>> original statements.  That was simply a wrong assumption on your
>>> part.  Re-read.  Comprehend.  From past discussions with you, you
>>> simply can't keep the facts straight.
>>
>> Ok, so now you fully acknowledge that the PDF was a red herring
>> having nothing to do with your original statements!
>
> No.
>
> How many times do I have to say this before you comprehend? ...
>
> I posted a link to a record of the factual events.  It differs
> from what's on Wikipedia.  I.e., Wikipedia is wrong, as stated.
>
>>> I only stated that the truth of the events was in the pdf and
>>> they differed from what Wikipedia says, which is true.  You
>>> should be able to grasp that from reading the pdf and [comparing]
>>> with Wikipedia's timeline of events.
>>
>> Yes, a red herring.  You don't wish to acknowledge that you were
>> wrong so you change the topic.
>
> Where did I change the topic?  I provide a link to the truth since
> Wikipedia got it wrong.  I stated that very simply so that there
> couldn't be any confusion whatsoever: "Wikipedia is wrong."  How
> much more clear can one be than that?   The contents of that pdf
> is obviously contradictory to my original understanding.  So,
> where exactly is the "red herring"? ...
>
>> Got it.  Subject changed to something meaningless after you can't
>> find a way to defend yourself and you won't admit that you are wrong.
>
> What do I need to defend myself from?  It's clear that the source of
> information I used was in error.  Mark and Andrew pointed that out,
> immediately.  There's was no debate over that from me.  The only
> debate over that is from you, well after the fact.
>
> So, AFAICT, the only thing I need to defend myself from is your
> irrational, ludicrous, and utterly stupid conversation.

Yes, this is clearly the Rod Pemberton I know.  Too bad you just keep 
posting the same nonsense here time and time again.

-- 

Rick

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

#29909

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 03:09:30 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/27/2014 2:56 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:

>> So, AFAICT, the only thing I need to defend myself from is
>> your irrational, ludicrous, and utterly stupid conversation.
>
> Yes, this is clearly the Rod Pemberton I know.

As for which of the various sixty or so "Rod Pemberton" 's in
the world you know, I only know "you" (apparently, Rick Collins,
not Rick Hohensee ...) via comp.lang.forth on Usenet.

> Too bad you just keep posting the same nonsense here
> time and time again.
>

I posted a list of actual court cases provided by a reputable,
University legal department that supported the discussion on
copyrights in good faith, openly, honestly, and truthfully.

I don't recall posting them here previously and a search didn't
pull up a post with them by me for this group.  There was a
mention of Franklin v. Apple a few years back here by me, but
no one replied to that mention, or corrected the mistake with
that court case then, or anywhere else for that matter.  Re-read
if you think it did.  You cited something else you thought applied
which you recollected ...

So, what "same nonsense here time and time again"?  Expound.

Is it anything like your non-sense on non-topical microprocessors?


Rod Pemberton

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

#29742

On Saturday, 19 April 2014 09:55:05 UTC+1, Rod Pemberton  wrote:

[...]
 
> 
> A byte by definition is exactly 8-bits.  Bytecode uses only one byte to
> represent all instructions.  With a 1:1 mapping of instructions to integer
> values, how can you have more than 256 words using only 8-bits per  > 
> instruction?

No, a byte is not by definition 8 bits (though I agree people often talk
as if it were, which can be confusing) 

Now if we were talking about 'octet-code', that might be different...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte

    J^n

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web