64 bit Menuet 0.59 released
in [ASM]
|
From: michael1353135 on 27 Feb 2007 14:25 64 bit version is a complete re-write, not an upgrade to 64bit processors. And keeping the source closed has guarateed us developers privacy and peace of mind, which is required for keeping a clear direction. So it's too early to talk about the licensing changes, though I'm open for suggestions. And x64 is a young platform. Who knows what the future will bring to us asmers :)
From: Betov on 27 Feb 2007 15:07 michael1353135(a)yahoo.com �crivait news:1172604343.761443.176450 @p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com: > 64 bit version is a complete re-write, not an upgrade to 64bit > processors. Ready for 128 bits ?! :( > And keeping the source closed has guarateed us developers privacy > and peace of mind, which is required for keeping a clear direction. No. keeping the source closed is keeping the source closed. Period. The GPL never ment disorder and you don't need the GPL for introducing disorder. Also, a bit of intellectual honnesty would not hurt, here: It is completely clear that, when one "rewrites completely" a Project for porting it from 32 (GPL) to 64 (Anti-GPL), there must be another reason than the port itself. As a matter of fact: The Anti-ethical License. > So it's too early to talk about the licensing changes, though I'm > open > for suggestions. Excuse me, but even though i don't know who you are, i strongly suspect a liar, here. A license choice is all about ethic and nothing about time. If you have no ethical concerns, time will never buy you any, and there is absolutely nothing to be discussed about licensing: It is GPL or Anti-GPL. Period. > And x64 is a young platform. Who knows what the future will > bring to us asmers :) Just ask me, i'll tell you an old story. :( Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Bodhi on 27 Feb 2007 15:23 Betov wrote: > michael1353135(a)yahoo.com �crivait news:1172604343.761443.176450 > @p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com: > <snip> > > Ready for 128 bits ?! > <snip> > > No. keeping the source closed is keeping the source closed. > Period. The GPL never ment disorder and you don't need the > GPL for introducing disorder. > > Also, a bit of intellectual honnesty would not hurt, here: > It is completely clear that, when one "rewrites completely" > a Project for porting it from 32 (GPL) to 64 (Anti-GPL), > there must be another reason than the port itself. As a > matter of fact: The Anti-ethical License. > > <snip> > > Excuse me, but even though i don't know who you are, i strongly > suspect a liar, here. A license choice is all about ethic and > nothing about time. If you have no ethical concerns, time will > never buy you any, and there is absolutely nothing to be discussed > about licensing: It is GPL or Anti-GPL. Period. > > <snip> You forgot to mention this, but I'll be glad to do it for you: This is all nothing more than the regurgitation of your often repeated and highly biased opinion. Period. You would do well to remember that not everyone subscribes to The Gospel According to Rene. Thank-you and have a wonderful day, Bodhi Rama
From: Betov on 27 Feb 2007 16:29 Bodhi <bodhi(a)dharma.net> �crivait news:e- 2dnVo5mdGyDnnYnZ2dnUVZ_oGlnZ2d(a)giganews.com: > <snip> Right. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Wolfgang Kern on 27 Feb 2007 19:15
michael wrote: [about processors and OS] > And keeping the source closed has guarateed us developers privacy > and peace of mind, which is required for keeping a clear direction. > So it's too early to talk about the licensing changes, though I'm > open for suggestions. > > And x64 is a young platform. Who knows what the future will > bring to us asmers :) I appreciate every attepmt to go 'new ways' apart from the M$-dictate. Good luck, and may the Lords Light,Helm,Magic and Logic protect you. __ wolfgang |