Significant Pure Assembler Application In MASM ?
in [ASM]
|
Prev: aeBIOS Test Request
Next: CMOVcc vs. Jcc
From: rhyde on 8 Oct 2007 10:56 On Oct 8, 3:42 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote: > <rh...(a)cs.ucr.edu> wrote in message > > news:1191792627.070020.319540(a)19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > > > On Oct 7, 6:21 am, Betov <be...(a)free.fr> wrote: > > > santosh <santosh....(a)gmail.com> écrivaitnews:fea5b9$tks$1(a)aioe.org: > > > > For you, maybe. If you ignore the fact that Master Pdf always was > > > a leader of the Anti-Gpl Mouvement, you cannot understand. See, > > > for example his absurd claims saying that PD is *more* than GPL, > > > and try to understand what this means. > > > Note, Rene, that PD *is compatible* with the GPL. > > Ah, careful there. You should've stated that the FSF claims PD is > compatible with the GPL. From conversations with my IP law attorney brother > and Internet searches, I'd say the US laws don't seem to agree with the > FSF's opinion. "Compatible with the GPL" basically means that someone can take the code, modify it, and release it under a GPL. Please have your lawyer brother explain why someone can't take a PD piece of software, modify it, and release the result under public domain. Indeed, there is little reason they can't take the PD software, without modification, and release it under the GPL. Of course, trying to *enforce* that license is going to be hard because it will be almost impossible to prove that the offender didn't grab the original PD version. Perhaps this is what your brother is talking about? However, "GPL compatible" doesn't suggest straight plagiarism like this (though "plagiarism" is not an appropriate term when PD is involved, as PD implies permission to use the material however you want). "GPL Compatible" (in every definition I've seen for the term) means that you can modify the software and release the modifications under the GPL license. > > The US laws require the PD code not be copyrighted again (term copyrights) > since it was copyrighted once already, by law and treaty, prior to release > to PD. Also, US laws only apply a copyright to the _entire_ work. That is > important. The US Supreme court has stated that a derivative of a > copyrighted or previously copyrighted work is only copyrightable if it is > sufficiently different from the original to be considered "unique" in it's > own right. Making a trivial modification to PD code and slapping on a > GPL/LGPL on it is technically a violation of the Supreme court's decision. > The GPL community seems to be getting away with this solely because neither > the original author nor anyone in the PD is preventing the copyright claims > by suing them. And boy would they have a hard time suing them if they released all rights via a declaration of PD and then tried to retract them. > But, it's possible that someone, say MS, could sue on behalf > of the PD. It's wise, IMO (since I'm not an attorney...), to treat PD code > as copyrighted and not mix it with other copyrighted code. Sounds to me like lawyer-speak. Ask your brother if *he'd* be willing to put up the money for such a lawsuit. You may, of course, sue anybody for anything, it seems. Whether the lawsuit is justified or has a chance of winning is a different matter, however. If we were as paranoid as your brother suggests we be, we'd *never* use any other code. For if one can retract PD, why not GPL? Or any other license for that matter? After all, I don't see any signatures on any pieces of paper between any two parties in any of this code. So it's really questionable whether a "license" exists, eh? Bottom line is that if someone uses PD software in good faith (that is, they reuse the software because they were given explicit permission to do so via a declaration of PD, as exists in my code), they're not going to lose any lawsuits over the matter. Slimly lawyers (perhaps your brother?) might want to "punish" them for one reason or another by forcing them to incur substantial legal costs to defend themselves, but it would be *damn* difficult to win such a case when the original author(s) of the code have given away the rights. hLater, Randy Hyde
From: Betov on 8 Oct 2007 11:01 "rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu" <rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu> �crivait news:1191854783.474247.178630(a)r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > If this is so true, why did they stop after creating some "demos" and > not actually write all these applications you're talking about? Because, as you had done nothing at that time, they were much dispited of not having the tremendous advantages of HLA, clown. :) Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 8 Oct 2007 11:03 "rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu" <rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu> �crivait news:1191854679.460326.206830(a)g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > Like I really care if anyone heard of my "famous name" in the "Win32 > Assembly Rebirth area." Who could have any doubt on that point clown? Is there one single place on earth where you would not have yet tried to sell your Tshirts? :) Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: rhyde on 8 Oct 2007 11:08 On Oct 8, 4:05 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote: > > Since an assembler usually outputs binary from assembly, why is HLA using > FASM to produce binary? Well documented. 1. HLA v1.x is a prototype for the HLA language. It's far easier to debug the compiler when the intermediate code is human-readable than when it's some binary data structure. 2. The decision to use a source-form intermediate format made the system easier to port. 3. Smart software engineering: It saved quite a bit of time (at least, in the early days) to let some other module, written by someone else, handle the low-level conversion. > It tends to lend credence to Betov's complaint that > HLA is just a preprocessor for a real assembler. And someone who is just as ignorant as Rene, who doesn't understand the difference between a language and an implementation of a language might actually believe this nonsense. Please tell me you are a little smarter than this. > > > When I've needed something, he's [Tomasz] ... provided a macro that > > satisfied my needs. > > Are you implying that you can't code assembly for assemblers other than HLA? check out webster.cs.ucr.edu if you actually think this. > I find that to be strange since a portion of your projected self-worth seems > to be based on your intellectual grasp of language syntax. What does "intellectual grasp of language syntax" have to do with understanding all the ins and outs of FASM macro syntax. Now I *could* have wasted an inordinate amount of time learning all the particular details of FASM so I could write my own macros for things like "global declarations", or I could post a question, get a quick answer, and work on *my* code rather than wasting hours learning all types of low-level FASM stuff that I would never use again. If FASM were my principle assembler, it would probably be worth the investment in time. FASM is not my principle assembler, so it's not worth my time to learn all the tiny details associated with it. That's why it's great to have someone like Tomasz around -- he answers my questions and my problems are solved. No such resource really exists for NASM. Now you tell me -- have you learned all the ins and outs of NASM syntax in just a few hours? Or have you devoted *considerable* time to this process? I can say without hesitation, for example, that I spent 15 years (since about 1983) learning the ins and outs of MASM syntax. Today, I know MASM fairly well and I can answer those types of questions about MASM. I've spent 10 years developing (and learning) the HLA language. So I can answer those types of questions about HLA. I'm afraid I don't have that amount of time available to learn FASM to any great depth -- I've got too much else to do. But if you think that I should, and that I should spend an equal amount of time learning about NASM so I can port HLA to use NASM syntax, feel free to tell us how much *you* know about all these different assemblers. hLater, Randy Hyde
From: rhyde on 8 Oct 2007 11:14
On Oct 8, 1:27 am, Betov <be...(a)free.fr> wrote: > > Sure, clown. This will change the day you will have obfuscated > FASM enough for introducing the whole HLA (modified-FASM included), > as *your* whole production. Then, HLA will be sold as written by > Master Pdf. Period. Naw, the only thing that will change will be whatever arguments you use to attack HLA. :-) > > > but > > that's irrelevant because your second comment -- FASM syntax is > > derived from NASM -- is not true at all. > > As you do not understand a thing at the basics of Syntax, Nope, I couldn't possibly understand a thing about the basics of syntax. Why, I've only taught automata theory and formal languages, programming language design, and compiler construction at the University level. I couldn't *possibly* understand a thing about the basics of syntax. A retired carpenter, on the other hand, knows all about this. > it is > no use to try to explain to you, but *YES*, evidently FASM, > - which was first based on TASM special Syntax -, was later > aligned for conforming, like all of the actual Assemblers, to > the NASM Syntax basics, after one of the friends of Thomasz > had succeed to convince him that this change was absolutely > required, for saving, among other things, from the scaring > confusions introduced by MASM in the Addressings. As you're fond of say, "links please". And while you're at it, please explain what "NASM syntax" you're talking about. AFAICT, the only similarities between the two are the use of "[" and "]" around memory addresses (taken from TASM ideal mode), the names of the instructions (taken from Intel), and certain forms of literal constants. Almost everything else is different or the similarities are coincidental. But that's just me. I, apparently, don't know the basics of syntax. hLater, Randy Hyde |