OSDev.org

Sorry, I know someone named "Bryant", who likes BSD and I couldn't see past the first 3 letters of your name at that point



"Giving credit" didn't change the fact that MS used the code and was able to cooperate in a agreeable standard. That was due to the fact that the code was good and free... free as in beer. Without MS and ISP's like AOL, do you really think TCP/IP would have *really* taken-off as it did?

Once again... ego... credit... drawing any lines of conclusion???

As for public domain, well, not all countries/territories recognize it so you do need some sort of declaration as to what conditions the code can be released in. BSD comes close to this.

I don't quite see your point... The BSD license stopped microsoft from claiming all original code. It has nothing todo with ego. Next you will be saying everything in the world should be free, ignore people's hard work, ignore the economy, lets just give everything away. If linux had gotten away from Linus and been developed by seperate people in the public domain with no care for his copyright and overwriding contorl it would not be what it is today. Now i wish it wasn't because it sucks, but for those linux advocates out there i am sure they would be very disapointed.

Licenses protect people's rights. If you write software, put years of sweat and money into it, i believe it is totally within your rights to sell a license to allow people to use it how you wish. If not you could always just not bother writing the program and the enitre Software Industry could collapse.

How many people knew where the original TCP/IP protocol came from? How many would actually care? Here is a clue: not many care as long as their e-mail and browser are working.

If your work is significant enough, there is no way to hide it. If it isn't, and someone else was required to expend their time/effort/money to make it become significant, why should you get all the credit and rights there-of?



Sorry to disappoint, but Microsoft and AOL helped our economy through sales. Not to mention all the commerical *nix distributions. The TCP/IP code didn't do this alone, and I can't see how various BSD distributions even compare on the "economy" factor.



Umm... that's exactly what a license like BSD is doing, it is the "international" legal equivalent of Public Domain. You are just forcing others to put your name at the bottom of a credit list that no one really cares about.

Now don't get me wrong, you *should* get credit for what you do, but it should remain proportional to what you *did*.



How do you know? If BSD didn't have the issues with AT&T at the time, how many people would know about Linux these days? Probably the same amount that know about BSD in the current situation. Why? Because no one cares about the license, people wanted a free (as in beer) operating system.

Even more to the point, which you touched-upon, is that Linus is the final authority on what goes into Linux. This is a simple concept called organization. This factor is completely independent of what license Linux is distributed under, because if no one else... Linus cares. In this respect, it makes the GPL seem like people are taking turns at doing CPR on a corpse



Licenses do not protect your rights, that is what Copyright laws do. As far as I knew, any published work is implicitly copyrighted by the original author with all rights reserved.

Licenses are meant to protect your @$$ in case of legal dispute.

At any rate, all I am really saying is "**** or get off the pot." If people *really* care about "free software" and sharing, then they shouldn't be restrictive or unrealistic about it.

Wtf is unrealistic about GPL... i am sure if you were intellgent enough to realise quality software instead of ranting bullshti on a forum you would want to use the GPL.. of course you will deny this so whatever.

Copyright laws only give people the right todo what they wish with there product. Licensing laws define those restraints... so i stand by my comment, it is the license and not the fact they hold copyright that protects the owners rights to there hard work.

Also my comment about ignoring the economy was aimed at your slow minded comments. I know microsoft has helpd the economy, they actually make money from services and hard work... unlike you who seems to think that it is a waste of time.

Dipshit.. shut up

Actually, whether you want to use GPL-like "keep-it-free-only" license, or a BSD style "use-as-you-like" lisence, has nothing to do with intelligence or quality of work. It simply depends on where you aim with the license.

GPL is a good license, if you want the derivatives of you work to stay open-source. People can still commercialize it if they want, but at least they're forced to release any modifications back to the community. GPL is also a decent license, if you plan on providing alternative commercial licenses for a fee for those that want to use your work in a commercial product they don't want to release the source code for.

BSD style (or well, I actually prefer the MIT-style) license is a good license, if your purpose is simply to give your work to the general public to use if they find it useful. It's a less selfish license, in the sense that it doesn't restrict the free use to those cases where the result will also be free. A clause that says the copyright has to be included in the documentation is still nice to have, because it allows you to later point out: "See, I wrote some of the code those guys use in their new product." Sure, the random computer user is not going to care. But the random computer user is also unlikely to pay your bills.

I've released code under GPL in the past, because I was happy with it back then. In the near future, I'm planning on using MIT-style license for my open-source releases (well at least most), because I actually do want to allow the use of my code for those who write commercial software as well. Not all commercial software is written by big corporations after all.

Yes, Copyright laws protect the right for people to do as they wish for their original works... including licensing those works (i.e. explicit permission) for others to freely use.



Once again, if Copyright laws protect the rights of the original author, and Licenses extend permission beyond the original author... how do Licenses protect the rights of the original author?



I suggest you re-read the sentence from where you applied that context, you will find that I never implied that the GPL is unrealistic... unless you classify the GPL as a person.

Anyhow, I think that the majority of your reply was completely uncalled for. Throughout my entire life, I have only witnessed people become offended and defensive in this manner when they feel threatened... by the truth. I am guilty of this too, but I've learned to eventually accept the reality of things instead of attacking the messenger of such truths.

Thanks for proving my point about the negative impact of such ego and myopic zealotry

Oh.. My.. God... the word right is in copyright, how did you notice, that is like the biggest conspiracy since watergate! Now onto the topic we were actually discussing. If a person doesn't release a license with there product, or had one that says do whatever, and this is not what they wish, then there rights are not protected. I don't see why any slightly intelligent human being wouldn't be able to understand the distinction between ability to set rights (copyright) and the actually definition of the rights (license).



->"At any rate, all I am really saying is "**** or get off the pot." If people *really* care about "free software" and sharing, then they shouldn't be restrictive or unrealistic about it."

I was referenceing that. Are you suddeny deciding that GPL isn't a free software license? I really think you have lost what you are even arguing. Don't forget you began this argument claiming people should waver all copyrights, on accout of you being an unrealistic commie who is jealous of others achievemnts.[/quote]



Well luckily you are not the authority on what is called for. If you are going to make narrow minded and conflicitng points, i don't see how you can't expect someone to remind you of your error in order to help you learn. When you have completed your study of human behaviour with a realistic number of candidates, then i would be happy to read your book... until then i really don't give a **** about your analysis as you can't even tell when someone is enjoying an argument and not at all "defensive". I have no position to defend, if i did, i would argue your public domain argument against my own views instead of those of the open source community.



You know your high horse only has three legs right? I really think you have a serious problem with human interaction mate... i really don't care either way lol, i just enjoy how you keep changing the basis of your arguments.

Thank you for being a *bit* more civilized this time, Tyler. At this rate, it will only take about 1000 more posts to get there completely



Homework time.

Why do people put something like "Copyright (c) YYYY ORIGINAL_AUTHOR" in every significant file if the license protects such rights?

What are you allowed to do with such files if only such a copyright notice is present?



If you really wish to take things out of context, that sentence affirms that the GPL *is* a free software license, yet of restrictive (or unrealistic) nature, if anything.



I made a statement, you incited an argument that I am bored enough to continue ATM

Anyhow I suggest you re-read that statement as well. I stated what people would do if they weren't so involved with their egos.

The last part of the statement is the funniest part. You are the seeming GPL zealot, and you call me a "communist"... anyone care to explain the irony in that? Anyone wish warn Tyler of the kind of obvious trap this sets if he responds?



Actually my high horse is tired from you putting words into my mouth just so you have something to attack. You keep attempting to obfuscate the basis of my position to others by doing so.

So this means that you *do* really care, but I called you out on it so you are trying to play a cooler hand. However, if you get too cool, you will have nothing to say.

Unfortunately for you, my statements are as trivial as sleeping to me, and do not require any emotional effort, so you can abandon any hopes of making me as "red in the face" as you probably are

If you really want me to "attack" you... then here it goes.

You keep using "there", a context of position/location, in place of "their", a context of possession/ownership. Because of this, amongst other obvious things, you are not representing your country-folk well, as you cannot even use the language named after your own people/culture in a proper manner... mate

Ok, I'm not a lawyer, so this is not legal advice, but copyright works (in most countries anyway) more or less like this:

You write something. You automatically have the copyright to that. Copyright is the exclusive right to copy. If no futher agreements are done, only the copyright holder (by default the original creator of the work) has the right to make copies and distribute them. That's the basic idea anyway. With software, it actually seems that 'use' is taken as one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder (if I'm not mistaken, at least my local laws say so). Your laws may vary, so consult a lawyer if you care about the details.

You then write "(c) Copyright 2007 Me" to tell everybody that you indeed hold the copyright. At least where I live (Finland) you have the copyright even if you don't state it, but you typically state it anyway, so everybody knows. Your laws may vary, so consult a lawyer if you care. There might be some conditions like "you have to state copyright if you want to enforce it" or some such stuff.

Now, a license is a "futher agreement" in the sense that it grants another person (natural or legal) some of the rights normally only held by the copyright holder, possibly with certain limitations or conditions. One normally doesn't sign a license agreement with consumer or open-source software as such, rather a click-through of some kind is used, or it is simply assumed that if you can't use the software without a license, and you use the software anyway, you must have (implicitly) agreed to the license (actually many software licenses explicitly state this).

Many countries also allow you to donate works into "public domain" which means you voluntarily give up your copyright. If something is in "public domain" there is no longer any copyright holder, and as such, no licenses are required.

That's the basic idea of copyrights and licenses.

Thanks for the reassurance, mystran... as that is basically how I understand it

The results of the Berne Convention are widely accepted and enforced, so you can pretty much guarantee that this is how *your* copyright law generally works.

As for the license, though, I would say that it extends/gives permission, because you cannot extend rights. To me, rights are something you inherit and can only forfeit under your own actions. As an example, if someone relinquished their Copyright to you, I think that would classify as inheriting rights.

If anyone is completely unsure, Wikipedia has a neat "Copyright Treaty Table" that you can look-up

As for the Public Domain, most people will abide by it and I don't think anyone will try to "steal" your work in territories that don't acknowledge it, but there are disputes as to how "no one" or "everyone" can own something in certain countries. In this situation, licenses such as the BSD/MIT license are the next best thing because explicitly express practically the same permissions but fore-go such copyright issues.

If you want a good example of such explicitly declared "public domain", then download BIND and check out the license

Well, back on track as to the original point of this thread.

There has already been some major code overhaul due to NASM now trying to be c99 compliant. All significant warning/error messages have been suppressed and I've confirmed this with Dev-Cpp 4.9.9.2 (MinGW 3.4.2), GCC4 for Linux and Pelles C for Win32.

The CVS should reflect this change. However it seems to take SourceForge anonymous CVS from 24-48 hours to sync with the developer CVS.

Also, Charles Crayne has volunteered to implement ELF64 support in NASM. With win64 (MS COFF) support already available, this should complete support for the mainstream 64-bit object formats. Not to mention that Flat Binary and RDOFF already support 64-bit