I can assure you that I am on very solid ground with all 3 companies whose products I link to, promote or feature on my website, Chris. The Internet is a very public place, and you won't get away with underhanded stuff for very long. If you still have a problem, then by all means take it up with Mum.
I don't know where that "here" of yours is, but FWIW I saw none of those posts. Looks like some USENET service provide do a better of job of sanitizing content than others. You might want to change.
They obviously are. But there's a difference. Those are bona-fide scumbags with no intent to be taken seriously --- or to ever read responses to their posts, for that matter. Replying to those posts is completely pointless.
Murray, OTOH, reads and writes here on at least an irregular basis, so there's a remote chance he can be taught better.
Please allow me to resist Hans' efforts to deceive you.
Hans feels that criticism of unseen code is legitimate, and rejects my right to ask for those uninformed critic's qualifications. He claims that I could not know who has, and who has not seen my code. PayPal send me a detailed transaction notification each time a valued customer contributes a small sum to my distribution costs. I am quite able to identify those that 'expertly' claim the code is bad, yet who have never had any of my code in their possession.
Hans vilifies me as a self-promoting saviour to all embedded-kind. I have merely countered his fallacious assumption that I am a profit seeker, by informing him otherwise. He arrogantly states that I have adopted a 'holier than thou' approach. In relation to Hans' position as a negativistic, 'drag-em-down' non-contributor to the communities cause, this may be a true reflection of my standing.
Numerous detractors, including Hans, have maliciously misrepresented me, by stating that I have either used a fallacious return e-mail address in my postings, or that I have attempted to conceal my name. It seems to have escaped each of them that I have signed each and every posting in this thread, with the same contraction of my full legal name, as is also featured on my website. It also seems to have escaped these deceitful detractors, that the return email address associated with each newsgroup posting is the same as that on my website. Not one of them has thought to try the e-mail address to see whether they were telling the truth, or not.
Yes, anger is blind. Those that are so readily offended by what they mistakenly regard as being spam, and who act out of sightless negative instincts, truly do the most harm in this world.
Regards, Murray R. Van Luyn.
...and again for those sentimentally non-sighted individuals.
I am very happy to receive your post, Gary. I very much value hearing from one of those that I have, hopefully, previously been able to assist, or who has a grateful appreciation for my humble efforts to date.
Yes, for the most part I thoroughly enjoyed coding and distributing
8051 based software from my homepage, for the 5 or so years until comparatively recently. It brought me very welcome contacts with a great variety of microcontroller enthusiast, and from all over the globe. Helping code users to solve their embedded-related queries was a lot of fun, and it continues to be at present.
Unfortunately, I learnt that there is a down side to distributing one's IP products to all comers. I won't go into too much detail about the wretched things I discovered some people doing with my code, but I will state that they put me off the practice of totally free code distribution for good. That was it, the ungrateful sods wrecked it for everyone!
After having to have a serious think about whom I might like to be coding for, and about how I might best restrict code distribution to that sector alone, I decided to adopt the 'token' contribution, software distribution policy. It works for me, as I now have more time to assist the code users that matter to me. Unfortunately, the code- downloading sector that I now specifically avoid has not taken my decision well. Tell me if I am wrong! Some users will see half the gas station price of a can of Coke as a good investment, if it places them
40-engineering-hours closer to a product release. Save as matter to upload to an illegal distribution site in exchange for download credit, others have no real use for the code anyway. These people are the ones that will see any price as 'unaffordable', and are very welcome to seek resources elsewhere.
I'm still coding for free, Gary. I'm still giving away oodles of free software, though now only to those with a reciprocal offering, and along with the new lucky dip download bonus. It's okay that you feel less inclined to make use of my website, now that it requires some commitment oneself, Gary. Please don't write it off altogether though, as you may feel differently about some of the planned, forthcoming additions one day.
Thanks again for a very welcome post, Gary. I enjoyed hearing from you very much.
The issue is the implication that it was a site owned by Keil that was updated. Reporting that is no problem, it is not Keil's site but a site that makes products that uses Keil's development tools. It is not clear that the op understands the second issue of permissible use of tradmarks, logos and copyrights. It may be that it is just a naive choice of words on his thread subject or not.
No. My usage agreement predates whatever structural re-organization that involved ARM with Keil. As far as I'm currently aware, I'm not the least bit exposed. You're welcome to raise it with whom ever, should you wish.
I'm not particularly attached to the Keil C51 logo, as it's display does nothing for my non-business cause. How this is of anyone else's business, though, is a total mystery to me.
I have noted a sad tendency for some community members to childishly indulge in licence and permission badgering. I've observed that it happens quite a lot. You'll have a devil of a job convincing me that Chris' motivation concerns anything other than throwing his (light) weight around. I suppose it makes him feel powerful to intimidate others, but I can't really see the point of it myself.
Thanks for your welcome interest, Walter. I hope that I've managed to satisfy your concerns.
Nah, on second thoughts Walter, your interest isn't all that welcome. You're no better than bully-boy Chris, and your motivation is just as self-indulgent. What I do and don't do is none of your business.
Business ethics in embedded systems is very much my business. Un-ethical behavior adversely affects anyone who is involved competitors and partners. Keil's name is being used to promote products. Your newsgroup behavior here reflects on Keil.
What I find legitimate is to measure you by the same standards you apply to others. E.g. no use of telepathic information as an argument.
No. I do reject your right to accuse others of telepathy when you're relying on telepathic knowledge yourself, though.
And you haven't spent so much as a single word on refuting that claim in about three dozen posts spread over the past 10 days. You'll have to excuse people for not knowing what you know if you can't be bothered to tell us. You insisted we weren't allowed telepathy, so how else were we to know?
Ah, so you're _finally_ admitting that our main claim, about your misrepresenting a commercial site (one that has "customers") as a benevolent contribution to the general public, was correct all the time.
But you're still relying on telepathy as the basis of your assumptions that a) none of your known customers showed that code to somebody else, and b) that you know every single mail address / nickname used by any of your customers.
There was no such information. What there was were lies in breathtakingly obvious contradiction to the facts present on your webpage (in its state at the time of the statement).
I did no such thing. What I did do was point out that you changed your own screen name and mail address in the middle of the thread (on July
7th, sometime between 14:40 and 20:00 CET), which seemed a rather self-contradictive thing to do immediately after of having complained about cbarn24050 being an anonymous coward.
Which, BTW, is another fact you never bothered to argue against, resorting to personal attacks instead.
Yet you changed your "From:" header, then claimed you couldn't remember having done so.
... which is exactly why you can't see how offensive your behaviour is.
There was absolutely nothing mistaken about that judgment.