Prev: Couldnt read MT8888
Next: S1D13700 Grayscale configuration
From: CBFalconer on 8 Aug 2005 20:56
"Murray R. Van Luyn" wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
> 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.

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(a)yahoo.com) (cbfalconer(a)worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!


From: Murray R. Van Luyn on 9 Aug 2005 04:21
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.

> and this is he first time someone has tried to lock my tools out of the
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.

> I did make the error of assuming he was using my tools, as it was not
indicated
> otherwise.

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.

> Unfortunately he has chosen to close that door.

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.


"Dave Dunfield" <Dave.Dunfield(a)use.techsupport.link.on.my.website> wrote in
message news:QcQJe.862$Dd.2598(a)newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> Hi Jon,
>
> >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:
>
> I agree that this should be put to rest, however in the light of recent
> activities, I will provide brief responses:
>
> >(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.
>
> 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), >
> But your point is well taken, I will indeed be more dilligent in the
future.
>
>
> >(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 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.
>
>
> >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.
>
> 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
> Software/firmware development services Fax:613-256-5821
>


From: Paul Burke on 9 Aug 2005 07:09
Murray R. Van Luyn wrote:

>
> 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.

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
From: Alan Balmer on 10 Aug 2005 12:21
On 9 Aug 2005 20:54:24 GMT, Richard <RichardRapier(a)netscape.net>
wrote:

>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.

Making a derivative work and publishing it hardly qualifies as
"personal use."
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
removebalmerconsultingthis(a)att.net
From: Alan Balmer on 10 Aug 2005 12:23
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:15:00 -0700, Scott Moore
<samiamsansspam(a)Sun.COM> wrote:

>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.

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
removebalmerconsultingthis(a)att.net
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Couldnt read MT8888
Next: S1D13700 Grayscale configuration