Free FAT16 Filesystem

The FAT16/ 8051 Re-Work of Dave Dunfield's Minimal Dos Compatible File System (MDCFS) for the Keil C compiler is now complete and is available for download at

formatting link

Situated over the Compact Flash sector level hardware and routines (also available from the link above), or above your own low level media access routines, the file system allows you to read from or write to single FAT16 DOS format root directory files.

You need only an 8051/ 8052 class controller with 128 bytes of DATA, 128 bytes of IDATA, and 1024 bytes of XDATA to get it all working.

Many thanks to Dave Dunfield who has very generously made his original FAT12 MDCFS code available for this purpose.

Regards, Murray R. Van Luyn.

Reply to
Murray R. Van Luyn
Loading thread data ...

Hey

I saw your page, does the filesystem only handle root files, like written on the page ?

i have made a fat16 for mmc which kan handle sub dirs, but not write.. maybe we could join them

Kasper

Reply to
Repzak

Sorry Guy's. I made evey effort to get it all squared up. Duh, I fell straight into that one. He's withdrawn it and I'm now expecting legal action.

Magnanimity only pays for someone else. I Give Up!

Regards, Murray R. Van Luyn.

for

FAT12

Reply to
Murray R. Van Luyn

Strike that.

Regards, Murray R. Van Luyn.

FAT16

Reply to
Murray R. Van Luyn

I would not normally go into this in public, however since you have done so, I would like to set the record straight:

I did not say anything about legal action.

I simply asked you to remove the modified copy of my example code from distribution because you have not only made it incompatible with my toolset, but you have made it require a competitors toolset. You failed to mention this in all of our previous correspondance.

Regards, Dave Dunfield

For the record, here is the entire text of the message I sent to Murry earlier today.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Murry,

In all of your correspondance, this is the first time you have mentioned that you are making the code specific to the Kiel compiler. Since you indicated that you are a customer, I had assumed that you were using my compiler.

Keil is a competitor, and you are essentiually forcing people to use a competitor instead of my own product. This is not acceptable. Please stop distribution of this modified code.

Regards, Dave

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Dunfield Development Systems          http://www.dunfield.com
Low cost software development tools for embedded systems
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Dave Dunfield

It's totally reasonable for Dave to ask that HIS code be kept compatible with the toolset he makes his living (partly) by selling. It's a reminder that 'free' software, of whatever variety, actually represents someone else's time and effort.

If you want to create an open- source filesystem, you'd best start with something already open- source. There are a few around; you can probably extract the requisite code from the Linux or FreeDOS source. And I'm sure the work involved in porting it to an 8051 will not be trivial.

Paul Burke

Reply to
Paul Burke

Agreed. I've done business with Dave in the past and he's a stand-up guy. His products work and are priced very reasonably. If Murray could port his work over to Dave's compiler and release it with Dave's blessings, it would be a win-win solution.

Reply to
Jim Stewart

Your desire that the modifications of your code be at least compatible with your compiler are quite reasonable. But since this has been aired now in public I've a couple of questions which I believe are fair to ask. (I'm in an ornery mood, this morning? Perhaps.)

No need to answer them, if you feel that an extended discussion here is inappropriate -- in that case, these will just lay on the table, as it were:

(1) Who was the professional in this situation, Dave? I accept that Murray did not mention Keil in his correspondence to you. But why didn't you ask? It seems to me, an outsider of this relationship, that if something like this slips between the cracks, so to speak, then the fact that it did lays more to your error than his. His standard of care is less than yours, I believe. Of course, regardless of this question, I do think your position is a reasonable one. I'm just wondering how _you_ let this slip through without being asked.

(2) Let's say that Murray had, instead, developed a single set of source code from your FAT12 MDCFS code that was able to be compiled on both your compiler AND under Keil's, as well. In other words, it used #if type statements to allow it to compiler for either product. Would this then still remain a problem for you? In other words, would you _require_ that the result of Murray's efforts _also_ be incompatible with your competition? Because if that is the case, it seems to me to place an even greater emphasis on my first question.

I think the letter you presented was very clear and given that you had no idea that it was being ported to Keil as well as being enhanced, quite understandable. I'm just not sure why you let this one get so far away from your interest without ever asking a question that probably should have been asked. You are the professional one, held to the higher standard, in this partnership -- from my otherwise ignorant perspective.

Jon

Reply to
Jonathan Kirwan

No, I'm sorry Dave but I'm not letting you play your game. Remember our little discussion about freedom?

I sent Dave a link to the completed code 1 full month ago. For 30 days he has also had the link to my website where the Keil 8051 code was advertised as 'coming soon'. I asked that he take a good look at it and have me fix anything he wasn't happy with.

"Go ahead and publish your work"

I have also previously mentioned to Dave that I write freeware code that I distribute from my site and that all of this code is for Keil C. I went into great detail about how I felt about the people at Keil too. I have never mentioned Dave's compiler. Not once. This was not a simple misunderstanding.

The second I finally use Dave's permission to distribute my 'significantly unique work' he suddenly decides that I've deceived him all this time. No Dave I will not modify the code to suit and sell your compilers as you have now demanded.

I have made my intentions absolutely clear at all times. I mentioned that it would be freeware and available to anyone for any purpose, both commercial and non commercial.

The only people that have lost out are the prospective users of the code that I worked about 1 full month on. It all boils down to filthy love of money. You can have that stuff Dave. Look what it does to people.

Regards, Murray R. Van Luyn.

-------------------------------

indicated

-------------------------------

Reply to
Murray R. Van Luyn

Hi Jon,

I agree that this should be put to rest, however in the light of recent activities, I will provide brief responses:

For several reasons:

The inital contact came from the support channel on my web site, and the individual identified himself as one of my customers - I did make the error of assuming he was using my tools, as it was not indicated otherwise.

The original MDCFS.C is very generic, not targeted to a particular processor, and barely targeted at my tools (the disk read/write examples given in the distribution are inline Micro-C/86 assembly, but otherwise the program is fairly standard). It seemed reasonable that he would keep it that way.

And frankly, it never occured to me ... I've granted use of bits of my source code to hundreds of people (most anyone who asks), and this is he first time someone has tried to lock my tools out of the results.

But your point is well taken, I will indeed be more dilligent in the future.

I would not have a problem with that, in fact in correspondance with him this morning, I suggested that either a) he could release it in a generic form similar to the original code, or b) I would help him if required to make it compatible with both toolsets. Unfortunately he has chosen to close that door.

Up until yesterday, it was all very friendly and I wasn't worried about it. When I realized he had locked out my tools, I asked for it to be removed, figuring that we would probably work something out later ...

Regarding your original question "Who was the professional in this situation?", I can only say to please take a look at the comments that he has posted about me on his web site and draw your own conclusion.

This is as far as this should go in a public forum - if anyone wishes futther clairification of my position, please contact me privately.

Regards,

Dave

--
Dunfield Development Systems          http://www.dunfield.com
Low cost software development tools for embedded systems
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Dave Dunfield

... snip ...

Please don't top-post. It results in losing the entire context, and shows a lack of professionalism.

Obviously you haven't been absolutely clear, otherwise there would be no misunderstanding. No commercial operation is going to attempt to help his competition at his own expense, which is what you have done by cutting Dunfields own system out. I think he is extremely generous in allowing you to adapt to other compilers via conditionals.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CBFalconer

Dave,

I can walk from this without losing a thing. I'm not that important. This is now because of the thousands of people that have missed out without there being an honourable reason.

Dave, I made every effort 3 weeks ago to have you understand that if you were to get greedy, that this is where we would end up.

results.

That's just not true. My license terms read "It is released free of charge for any purpose, including both commercial and non-commercial uses." I have already explained to you that there is only the single impediment that restricts you or anyone else from adapting and using the code to promote his or her own software tools, and that is that its as yet un-releasable. You withdrew permission.

indicated

No, that's not true. You have had 30 days in which you chose to plead ignorant. I have sent you countless e-mails describing precisely my activities and intentions. You agreed without reservation, so the work was performed.

What is clear to me is your motivation. You now have in your possession a piece of code that is highly marketable, and you appear to have chosen to preserve a market for it by eliminating its competition. Better than that, you seem to believe that you have manipulated someone into performing the value adding process for you.

No, that's also deceitful. The only thing preventing me from releasing the code free of charge for any purpose is that YOU have withdrawn the FAT12 code contribution's permission. Now you appear to want me to do the rest of the hard work to adapt it so that you can sell more compilers, and then shut the door to preserve a greedy market strategy once more.

Dave, you have stated to me that use of the MDCFS code in the development of the FAT16 code would have no economic impact "since MDCFS is not a revenue source for me". It is now up to you to be true to your word. Prove me wrong and let me release the code I worked so hard on for everyone to use. Otherwise, we will all be watching your website to see just how long it takes you to prove what I have suggested absolutely true.

Regards, Murray R. Van Luyn.

future.

make

that

it.

situation?",

about

futther

Reply to
Murray R. Van Luyn

That's total bollocks. He wrote the code; it's his. He generously allowed you to use it; you abused his generosity by making it not work with his compiler. You COULD have kept compatibility- he's indicated that he would have been totally happy with that.

Put yourself in the other guy's shoes. In the long term it's in YOUR interest that people should coontinue to provide everybody with good stuff, free of charge. What do they get from it? In dave's case, the chance of a sale. What's wrong with that. Other people do it to have something spicy on the CV, or because they need a modification and they automatically publish it under the terms of the licence.

Paul Burke

Reply to
Paul Burke

Just curious, under what law are you assuming the right that your code would not be modified ? Copyright ? Copyright is about right of copy, or right to use parts of the source, which clearly was given up. The right to dictate how the source was USED is completely outside the copyright (since the right of copy was clearly given up in this case), and the only law that applies is what was written into a contract. This is the only way that anyone, from a freeware producer to Microsoft, can assume these rights, is by contract. Many legal people don't even believe that this is valid (since software licences don't meet several of the requirements of contract law), but that aside, did you have a contract with this person ?

In my opinion, these "infinite depth" usage restrictions are not only unenforceable, they are wrong. Assuming that you can give someone an item, then later determine that the use is against your interests undermines the whole idea of unrestricted use software. Further, the user of your source has not prevented anything, he has enabled something, namely the use of another compiler. Anyone having a problem with that can get your original source code.

If you place your source online for public use, and someone remakes it into a tool to generate sex web sites, that does not, too me, translate into your right to stop it. Give away means give away. If you want to hold all rights to it, don't give it away.

Reply to
Scott Moore

Scott Moore wrote in news:ddavbk$pal$ snipped-for-privacy@news1nwk.SFbay.Sun.COM:

I went and looked, and the only right he grants publicly is to use his code for personal use only, not commercial use. So long as the OP is not providing the code for resale, or for commercial use, I can't say as I see a problem here, copyright wise. Then again, I'm not a lawyer either.

--
Richard
Reply to
Richard

There are the legalisms, and there is the principled thing to do. As far as I am concerned Dave Dunfield owns it, and his wishes should be paramount.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CBFalconer

CBFalconer wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com:

I do agree that it is certainly not the principiled thing to do, converting it to work with a competitors development tools only. There is little that Dave Dunfield can do legally about it given the conditions under which he posted the source code, unless I missed something here, so long as the modified code is not sold, or used for some other commercial purpose.

--
Richard
Reply to
Richard

Making a derivative work and publishing it hardly qualifies as "personal use."

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Alan Balmer

You have an incomplete notion of copyright. Copyright includes several rights, which can be granted wholly or individually, with whatever restrictions the owner chooses to impose.

This is an easy subject to research, but you could start with

formatting link

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Alan Balmer

dime-a-dozen buggy freeware is everywhere

Reply to
jyaron

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.