Free FAT16 Filesystem

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
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 www.iinet.net.au/~vanluynm

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.



Re: Free FAT16 Filesystem

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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



Re: Free FAT16 Filesystem
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 He's withdrawn it and I'm now expecting legal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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
for
FAT12



Re: Free FAT16 Filesystem
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Strike that.

Regards,
Murray R. Van Luyn.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
FAT16



Re: Free FAT16 Filesystem
Quoted text here. Click to load it


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
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Free FAT16 Filesystem

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

Re: Free FAT16 Filesystem
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.



Re: Free FAT16 Filesystem
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 13:35:14 GMT,
snipped-for-privacy@use.techsupport.link.on.my.website (Dave Dunfield)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

Re: Free FAT16 Filesystem
Hi Jon,

Quoted text here. Click to load it


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

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

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
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Free FAT16 Filesystem
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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.


Quoted text here. Click to load it
future.
make
that
it.
situation?",
Quoted text here. Click to load it
about
futther



Re: Free FAT16 Filesystem

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

Re: Free FAT16 Filesystem

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.


Re: Free FAT16 Filesystem

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

Re: Free FAT16 Filesystem
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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 ( snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com) ( snipped-for-privacy@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Free FAT16 Filesystem

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

Re: Free FAT16 Filesystem

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Making a derivative work and publishing it hardly qualifies as
"personal use."
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Free FAT16 Filesystem
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:15:00 -0700, Scott Moore

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Free FAT16 Filesystem
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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
-------------------------------
Quoted text here. Click to load it
indicated
-------------------------------
Quoted text here. Click to load it



Re: Free FAT16 Filesystem
Quoted text here. Click to load it
... snip ...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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 ( snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com) ( snipped-for-privacy@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Free FAT16 Filesystem
dime-a-dozen
buggy freeware is everywhere



Site Timeline