Extended Hamming encode/decode

Restricted in the sense that you cannot do what you want with it? No, the BSD license is much more free in this sense. Related was the hypocrisy of RMS towards OpenBSD, which became the theme of the OpenBSD 4.3 release.

formatting link

--
Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma:  
http://www.opera.com/mail/
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Boudewijn Dijkstra
Loading thread data ...

Of course. It's not applicable in all cases. My point was to illustrate how deferred binding can now have a real role in the embedded marketplace as more and more devices use serial flash with limited RAM, etc. (e.g., a Gb of serial flash is now affordable in small devices)

Reply to
D Yuniskis

You might want to be careful about using that phrase! Not only does it's meaning vary from country to country, but it essentially says, "You can behave as if this was *your* original work without giving *me* any credit/mention".

IANAL but advise folks to think carefully before adopting

*any* legalese in their works. Once done, it is impossible to undo. (ignorance is not a recognized defense)

Reply to
D Yuniskis

[...]

OMFG what a piece of pompous shit over a tiny snippet of trivial code. That only confirms my views about so-called "free opensource" community.

VLV

Reply to
Vladimir Vassilevsky

Be nice. :> Everyone has pride (or *should* have pride) in their work. Regardless of the effort or complexity, it is still *his* work and he has a right to distribute and protect it as *he* sees fit.

I don't think there is much harm in a discussion of the merits of various licensing schemes. After all, look at all the legalese MS uses to describe *their* crap! :>

And condemning the entire open source community seems a bit heavy handed. There are some truly amazing pieces of software out there (e.g., PostgreSQL) that *really* give The Big Boys a run for their money!

I think the attitude/philosophy of the developer(s) is often reflected in their choice of license. E.g., "This is mine. You can't use it -- unless you show me

*yours*"

vs.

"I wrote this. Hope you enjoy using it. I'd appreciate it if you could bury a reference to me *somewhere* in your sources. But, if you don't, chances are, I won't take the time to do anything about it..."

I rarely put my name on things (except to protect *my* rights). Yet, most of the products that I have designed have some little "easter egg" that I -- or a small group of people -- might understand/recognize.

E.g., one device plays a few bars of a Grateful Dead song on initialization. One lengthy piece of technical documentation has a nickname of mine (recognizable by perhaps a dozen people?) displayed in one of the screen shots. "Private Jokes". :>

Reply to
D Yuniskis

Now if that isn't psychological projection, I don't know what is.

It is only a very small effort. I certainly didn't say any different.

However, if it is useful to one or two others, that is more than enough.

I wouldn't know why you can fairly project a small thread to mean anything about "free opensource." I have no association with any others and it would be unfair to tar and feather them over anything here. Luckily for them, they stand or fall on their own.

But you are projecting yourself onto others furiously. So don't let me get in your way.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Kirwan

With such limited amount of memory, why would one need (L)GPLed code ? If one understands what he/she is doing, why would you want to use code written by someone else ?

Algorithms have been published in Fortran, Algol, Pascal and most recently in C. Software patents (e.g. generating a graphical cross hair cursor by XORing) are a hot debate issue in some countries, but in most countries, this should not be a general issue.

Regarding the ability for the end user to replace the library code in LGPL, why not simply put a jump table at the start of each EPROM as was done 30 years ago, so that library code could be recompiled, relinked and reburned individually (in those days burning a 1-8 KiB EPROM took at least 5 minutes), in order to continue tests the same day.

Reply to
Paul Keinanen

Right. Everyone should be a slave of his pride. This not only makes people behave like offended idiots, but also makes them good targets for mockery :))))

Certainly. Discussing the phylosophy would be more interesting though.

I don't mind M$. Their stuff does work, and it requires minimal effort from my side. For what it does, it is priced very reasonably.

It looks like the vast majority is worseless poorly done code and bunch of religious nutcases praising Linux and cursing M$. There is also crowds of freeloaders making absolutely terrible programs by dragging together some pieces that they found in the internet. Is that really so?

Yes, there are few examples of good utility softwares distributed as FOSS.

Pomposity in its finest. If you decided to to the contribution to the World, then do it. Don't demand anything in return.

That's realistic point of view.

I enjoy the process of creating something new that works good. Especially if this challenges my abilities. And I don't mind getting paid for that. As for my name and "rights", I can't care less.

Never been a fan of something like that.

VLV

Reply to
Vladimir Vassilevsky

If you want to donate something to the public domain (e.g. since you notice, it would be impractical to collect any revenues), why not say so ?

Of course, you should include statements like "AS IS" in order to avoid legal consequences if some idiot uses your buggy code without checking and kills thousands of people :-).

Reply to
Paul Keinanen

No, I didn't say *slave* to your pride. Rather, I think you should *want* to "do a good job" and be pleased with yourself for doing so. False humility is as bad as an inflated ego.

The problem I see more of is people *not* "taking pride" (read that as "wanting to do a good job") in their work but, rather, just trying to "get it done".

I am particularly amused at the lack of formal specification that goes into most projects and the casual attitude towards rigorous testing.

Folks always complain, "My boss never gives me *time* to test my work". OK, let's *pretend* that may be the case. But, why is it you don't rigorously test the code you write for yourself or release as FOSS? Who is it that is denying you the "time needed" to adequately test then? :<

Agreed. I still run W2KS on my primary machine (though it looks as though I may have to upgrade a machine to XP just to use some of the software development tools I will be evaluating). I see no reason in chasing a moving target.

OTOH, I don't use any MS *tools* as they are notoriously bad.

Linux is the *worst* thing that happened to FOSS! Too many religious zealots who basically just don't want to pay for software (I don't mean *all* such adherents; but, the loudest of the bunch tend to be people who want to *play* without

*paying* -- and then complaining that someone else hasn't fixed some bug that is bothering them :< ).

You should have to be an active contributor to avail yourself of these things. Maybe that would separate the wheat from the chafe. :-/ When I encounter these zealots (Linux -- with all its distros, OS X, etc.) I casually ask them what *they* have done for the FOSS "movement" (besides *using* something that was *given* to them). The silence is usually deafening. :>

(I don't want this to digress into an MS *or* Linux rant)

This is true in many cases. But, also untrue in others.

I shake my head in disbelief as I see these huge monstrosities being built that mimic all of the faults of MS applications. Haven't we learned *anything*?? Try to be all things to all people and you will end up with a horribly broken product that appeals to no one. :<

I have been particularly happy with NetBSD over the years. It doesn't aim for lots of fanfare. It doesn't have a "cult" following. It assumes a modicum of techical expertice among its users (I suspect *most* NetBSD users have built their own kernels and, as such, are familiar with what's involved; what percentage of Lin*x users have?)

But, I use UN*X in more of a classical approach -- the command line or a bunch of simple xterm(1)'s (giving me *lots* of command lines :> ). I don't need the GUI fluff and the bugs that invariably come along with it.

It's a tool. Just like a carpenter's hammer. I want to know that I can "drive nails" with it and don't feel inclined to keep replacing it every few weeks with "the latest and greatest (hammer)".

Exactly! I chuckle thinking about a friend suggesting, one day, "Let's fix *your* ___________ and then we can fix *mine*". Sure, sounds good. But, of the two of us, *I* am the one who knows how to do this. So, you'll watch me fix mine -- then expect me to fix *yours*! Gee, how nice of you! :>

For some of us, yes. For others...

Too often, commercial entities (or "planning to be commercial entities") go the open source route to get others to do their work for them "on the cheap". This is just sleaze (IMO, YMMV).

Ditto. There is an intense personal satisfaction in seeing something that *you* have done. I recently dug out the stump for a tree I felled earlier. *Big* hole to get down to the lowest roots, etc. Several tons of soil to compensate for the soil "lost" in the process. Sure felt good to see that sitting on the side of the road knowing it got there *only* because of *my* actions! (do it again? not a chance! :> )

I have no desire to give ownership of something that *is* mine, away. Use it, abuse it, plagiarize it, etc. But,

*I* can still legally do what I want with it (including *use* it)

I find it amusing to come up with such off-beat ideas. And, its particularly amusing when I stumble across something like this some years later that I may have forgotten. E.g., I recently removed a coin cell holder from a board I designed and found "Kilroy" staring up at me from the silkscreen. It evoked a chuckle and got me thinking about when I did the original design.

I've noticed other friends with similar attitudes. E.g., my initials are in the permanent high score table in one commercial video (arcade) game as a friend opted to put them there (needing to put

*something* there) when it was being developed. It's amusing to show them to folks and have them wonder how they got there! :>
Reply to
D Yuniskis

The point is that you need to understand what this *really* means. I.e., you can;t change your mind later. OTOH, with a license, you *can* change the terms of your license and the folks who fall under those terms.

You will note very *few* things are deliberately placed into the public domain -- despite license terms that effectively let you do *anything* (except claim it as an original work) with it.

IANAL so I'm not sure what the actual legal liability is for things like this.

Reply to
D Yuniskis
[...]

that's a matter of taste. I decompress explicitly to a new directory, so I prefer archives without another subdirectory.

Oliver

--
Oliver Betz, Munich
despammed.com might be broken, use Reply-To:
Reply to
Oliver Betz

That's the way I do it, as well. Which is why I set it up the way I do. Also, WinXP (which I am using here) appears to automatically want to create a directory by the same name as the zip -- if one doesn't edit the default. Adding another directory in the zip would compound that problem, too.

It's hard to do a one-size fits all here, I suppose.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Kirwan

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.