Significant Pure Assembler Application In MASM ?
in [ASM]
|
Prev: aeBIOS Test Request
Next: CMOVcc vs. Jcc
From: Rod Pemberton on 8 Oct 2007 19:46 <rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu> wrote in message news:1191855383.258402.105680(a)o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... On Oct 8, 3:42 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote: > <rh...(a)cs.ucr.edu> wrote in message > > > 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. Didn't I already explain that somewhere: "The US Supreme court has stated that a derivative of a copyrighted or previously copyrighted work [i.e., PD] is only copyrightable if it is sufficiently different from the original to be considered 'unique' in it's own right." > Indeed, there is little reason they can't take the PD software, > without modification, and release it under the GPL. As I pointed out, it depends on how "little reason" is defined 1) someone suing 2) legalities. > PD implies permission to use the material however you want No. You can't copyright PD code. It was copyrighted already. It can be modified. If the resulting work is sufficiently different to be unique, then it may copyrighted. However, if it isn't sufficiently different, then the Supreme court said all derivative works fall under the rights of the original copyright, which has been released as PD. So, depending on the result, the modified code may be copyrightable or be PD. I've seen more than a few GPL'd programs which are predominantly PD, but the author's expectation that his changes are GPL'd could be wrong. His changes may be PD instead. > 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. PD doesn't mean no rights. By law, PD has one right: it can't be copyrighted again. This right can't be retracted and shouldn't be violated IMO. > 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. If they applied a copyright to the PD code, and the courts decide it's form doesn't constitute a unique work, they could be sued to remove the copyright. I.e., any modifications are no longer copyrighted but become PD instead. Such a tactic could "destroy" GPL code by forcing it to become PD. This would be advantageous to a commercial enterprise which prefers to not have to comply with open source licensing requirements such as only linking to open source code. They could then link. Rod Pemberton
From: Rod Pemberton on 8 Oct 2007 19:52 <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1191862977.420277.84980(a)y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > That does *not* imply, however, > that FASM syntax is equal to, or even based on, NASM syntax. The facts are that both are based on TASM's ideal mode and the critical differences of syntax between NASM and TASM's ideal mode were incorporated into FASM's syntax. This makes FASM's syntax a derivative of NASM's. If it evolved into a completely different syntax, say HLA, that doesn't negate it's historical context. Rod Pemberton
From: Betov on 9 Oct 2007 03:17 hutch-- <hutch(a)movsd.com> �crivait news:1191886528.376742.278340@ 50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com: > Even bigger smile Still nothing to answer? Too bad. :) Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: hutch-- on 9 Oct 2007 04:10 Smile, > Still nothing to answer? Too bad. Stonewalling will not put you where you claim. This era is in living memory and you were not part of it.
From: Evenbit on 10 Oct 2007 15:19
On Oct 7, 3:52 am, Rosario <Rosa...(a)not.exist> wrote: > > i think in the future cpu vendors will inprove the cpu so java p-code > or C# p-code or phiton p-code is more fast > > the assembly programers will program in p-code There _have_ been attempts at this for both Java byte-code and .NET byte-code (MSIL), but there seems to be no benefit. Nathan. |