>Tom,
>
>I'm inclined to agree with Paul and just bow out of this discussion,
>which is going nowhere and is certainly off-topic.
>
>However, before doing this, I would point out that you can't
>copyright an algorithm.
>
>Common practice, and I see nothing wrong with it despite your
>objection, is to copyright all source code that is created within an
>organisation. If it's a straight copy of something else, that's
>something else. From what Paul says, it sounds like what he's done is
>a long way from a straight copy (unless I missed the XML addendum to
>the Philips documantation, that is)
> You are confusing copyright with compensation.
My original thought was that this would help IAR more than anything,
but I suppose there are some that could argue either way. I think I
will just keep the files to myself unless IAR gives me permission.
Until then, just ask them yourselves. I'm just about finished with
the iolpc2103.h file, but that has copyrighted material in it so
I'll hold off on that as well.
Andy
--- In lpc2000@lpc2..., "brendanmurphy37"
<brendan.murphy@i...> wrote: >
>
> Tom,
>
> I'm inclined to agree with Paul and just bow out of this discussion, > which is going nowhere and is certainly
off-topic.
>
> However, before doing this, I would point out that you can't
> copyright an algorithm.
>
> Common practice, and I see nothing wrong with it despite your
> objection, is to copyright all source code that is created within an > organisation. If it's a straight copy of
something else, that's
> something else. From what Paul says, it sounds like what he's done is > a long way from a straight copy (unless I missed
the XML addendum to > the Philips documantation, that is)
>
> Brendan
> --- In lpc2000@lpc2..., Tom Walsh <tom@o...> wrote:
> >
> > brendanmurphy37 wrote:
> >
> > >I agree: most commercial companies (and certainly most large
> > >companies) more or less have to operate on this basis (i.e.
> copyright
> > >everything they do).
> > >
> > >Don't forget that just because something is copyright
doesn't mean > to
> > >say it can't be freely distributed under whatever terms the
> company
> > >or organisation chooses.
> > >
> > >I have to say, I'd be a bit concerned if someone was distributing > > >copyright material without explicit
permission from the owner,
> > >regardless of how trivial it might seem. The alternative is an
> > >interesting take on the law (i.e. "I'll ignore it if I
think it
> > >trivial").
> > >
> > >As you point out, Paul, someone put the effort into creating the > work
> > >in the first place. If they want to distribute it freely (and as > you
> > >point out, there's plenty of cases where they'd be mad
to do
> > >otherwise), that's fine. However, I'd certainly check
before
> offering
> > >somone else's work around first (I'm not implying this
wasn't done > in
> > >this case, by the way: just making a general observation).
> > >
> > >Brendan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > By Paul's reasoning, if you took the source to an application and > handed
> > it to someone to retype, then you "own" the copyright to
that
> work!
> > That is what I'm saying. So, taking a PDF, XML, or marking on mud > > tablets, rewriting it in your own style does
not make that an
> original
> > work. It is merely transcription.
> >
> > I admit, this is a very sore point with me. People who claim
> copyright
> > over trivial, or commonly known algorithms are doing everyone a dis- > service.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > TomW
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant
> > http://openhardware.net,http://cyberiansoftware.com
> > "Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..."
> > ----------------
> >
>
Reply by brendanmurphy37●January 17, 20062006-01-17
Tom,
I'm inclined to agree with Paul and just bow out of this discussion,
which is going nowhere and is certainly off-topic.
However, before doing this, I would point out that you can't
copyright an algorithm.
Common practice, and I see nothing wrong with it despite your
objection, is to copyright all source code that is created within an
organisation. If it's a straight copy of something else, that's
something else. From what Paul says, it sounds like what he's done is
a long way from a straight copy (unless I missed the XML addendum to
the Philips documantation, that is)
Brendan
--- In lpc2000@lpc2..., Tom Walsh <tom@o...> wrote: >
> brendanmurphy37 wrote:
>
> >I agree: most commercial companies (and certainly most large
> >companies) more or less have to operate on this basis (i.e. copyright > >everything they do).
> >
> >Don't forget that just because something is copyright doesn't
mean to > >say it can't be freely distributed under
whatever terms the company > >or organisation chooses.
> >
> >I have to say, I'd be a bit concerned if someone was distributing
> >copyright material without explicit permission from the owner,
> >regardless of how trivial it might seem. The alternative is an
> >interesting take on the law (i.e. "I'll ignore it if I think
it
> >trivial").
> >
> >As you point out, Paul, someone put the effort into creating the work > >in the first place. If they want to distribute
it freely (and as you > >point out, there's plenty of cases where
they'd be mad to do
> >otherwise), that's fine. However, I'd certainly check before
offering > >somone else's work around first (I'm
not implying this wasn't done in > >this case, by the way: just making a general
observation).
> >
> >Brendan
> >
> >
> >
> By Paul's reasoning, if you took the source to an application and handed > it to someone to retype, then you "own"
the copyright to that work! > That is what I'm saying. So, taking a PDF,
XML, or marking on mud
> tablets, rewriting it in your own style does not make that an original > work. It is merely transcription.
>
> I admit, this is a very sore point with me. People who claim copyright > over trivial, or commonly known algorithms are
doing everyone a dis- service. >
> Regards,
>
> TomW
> --
> Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant
> http://openhardware.net,http://cyberiansoftware.com
> "Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..."
> ----------------
>
Reply by FreeRTOS Info●January 17, 20062006-01-17
> By Paul's reasoning, if you took the source to an application and
handed > it to someone to retype, then you "own"
the copyright to that work!
> That is what I'm saying. So, taking a PDF, XML, or marking on mud
> tablets, rewriting it in your own style does not make that an original
> work. It is merely transcription.
>
> I admit, this is a very sore point with me. People who claim copyright
> over trivial, or commonly known algorithms are doing everyone a dis-service. >
> Regards,
>
> TomW
>
Ok, so I really wish I had not said anything now.
To hopefully close off this OT thread I would say my original point was more
that the first two emails in this thread seem to indicate that IAR do not
want/intend the files to be distributed.
> By Paul's reasoning, if you took the source
to an application
> and handed it to someone to retype, then you "own" the
copyright
> to that work!
You know, I didn't say that. The context is clear, generating an XML
description of a part from a piece of paper or electronic equivalent. I
did not say "transcribe". I have not "trascribed". I
didn't say "by
extension" that allws you to infer anything. You are certainly twisting
things.
> That is what I'm saying. So, taking a PDF,
XML, or marking on mud
> tablets, rewriting it in your own style does not make that an
> original work. It is merely transcription.
> I admit, this is a very sore point with me. People
who claim
> copyright over trivial, or commonly known algorithms are doing
> everyone a dis-service.
You cannot copyright an algorithm, that is clear. However, this is not
the context of my assertion.
--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
Reply by brendanmurphy37●January 17, 20062006-01-17
Tom,
I'm no legal expert, but I'd use the term "copying" when
talking
about "reformatting an existing work". Precisely what copyright is
designed to control (i.e. establish ownership of the work). If the
owner is happy to distribute it widely, that's fine, but I'd still
recommend checking first...
As for something like a header file mapping names to addresses,
there's certainly work in preparing it, so I don't see any problem
with putting a copyright notice on it. But as I say, I'm no legal
expert.
Brendan
--- In lpc2000@lpc2..., Tom Walsh <tom@o...> wrote: >
> Paul Curtis wrote:
>
> >Tom,
> >
> >
> >
> >>>With respect - if they are not distributing them yet -
> >>>
> >>>
> >>neither should you.
> >>
> >>
> >>>I presume they are copyrighted?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Probably patented too... Seems that a number of people slap a
> >>boilerplate copyright header into everything they do, even
> >>trivial code,
> >>or stuff that isn't theirs. e.g. header files describing register > >>locations and bit values / name. In the
case of the header
> >>files, they
> >>are using the exact verbage as Philips.
> >>
> >>Now how can you justify asserting that you have a copywrite
> >>on something
> >>that isn't yours??? Apparently Microsoft is not the only one
to use > >>Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >All our header files are generated from XML descriptions and those are > >also used in the debugger and build system. As
to copyright, the person > >who typed in the names does it for the company
they are working for and, > >as such, it is part of their job to ensure
that even trivial things are > >copyrighted. Given the large number of
registers that some ARM chips > >have, this is not a trivial task. Hence, a
copyright is an essential > >part of software and product development to
ensure that a competitor > >does not simply steal your work.
> >
> >
> >
> Well, apparently you went to a different school than I did. Copyright > can only be asserted on an original work, simply
reformatting an
> existing work does not automagically create a copyright. Nor does
> "sweat" justify assigning a copyright. Respectfully, it is my opinion > that you spend some time looking into copyright
practice.
>
> TomW
>
> --
> Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant
> http://openhardware.net,http://cyberiansoftware.com
> "Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..."
> ----------------
>
Reply by Tom Walsh●January 17, 20062006-01-17
brendanmurphy37 wrote:
>I agree: most commercial companies (and certainly
most large
>companies) more or less have to operate on this basis (i.e. copyright
>everything they do).
>
>Don't forget that just because something is copyright doesn't mean
to
>say it can't be freely distributed under whatever terms the company
>or organisation chooses.
>
>I have to say, I'd be a bit concerned if someone was distributing
>copyright material without explicit permission from the owner,
>regardless of how trivial it might seem. The alternative is an
>interesting take on the law (i.e. "I'll ignore it if I think it
>trivial").
>
>As you point out, Paul, someone put the effort into creating the work
>in the first place. If they want to distribute it freely (and as you
>point out, there's plenty of cases where they'd be mad to do
>otherwise), that's fine. However, I'd certainly check before
offering
>somone else's work around first (I'm not implying this wasn't
done in
>this case, by the way: just making a general observation).
>
>Brendan
> By Paul's reasoning, if you took the source to an application and
handed
it to someone to retype, then you "own" the copyright to that work!
That is what I'm saying. So, taking a PDF, XML, or marking on mud
tablets, rewriting it in your own style does not make that an original
work. It is merely transcription.
I admit, this is a very sore point with me. People who claim copyright
over trivial, or commonly known algorithms are doing everyone a dis-service.
Reply by brendanmurphy37●January 17, 20062006-01-17
I agree: most commercial companies (and certainly most large
companies) more or less have to operate on this basis (i.e. copyright
everything they do).
Don't forget that just because something is copyright doesn't mean to
say it can't be freely distributed under whatever terms the company
or organisation chooses.
I have to say, I'd be a bit concerned if someone was distributing
copyright material without explicit permission from the owner,
regardless of how trivial it might seem. The alternative is an
interesting take on the law (i.e. "I'll ignore it if I think it
trivial").
As you point out, Paul, someone put the effort into creating the work
in the first place. If they want to distribute it freely (and as you
point out, there's plenty of cases where they'd be mad to do
otherwise), that's fine. However, I'd certainly check before offering
somone else's work around first (I'm not implying this wasn't
done in
this case, by the way: just making a general observation).
Brendan
--- In lpc2000@lpc2..., "Paul Curtis" <plc@r...> wrote: >
> Tom,
>
> > >With respect - if they are not distributing them yet -
> > neither should you.
> > >I presume they are copyrighted?
> > >
> > Probably patented too... Seems that a number of people slap a
> > boilerplate copyright header into everything they do, even
> > trivial code,
> > or stuff that isn't theirs. e.g. header files describing register > > locations and bit values / name. In the case
of the header
> > files, they
> > are using the exact verbage as Philips.
> >
> > Now how can you justify asserting that you have a copywrite
> > on something
> > that isn't yours??? Apparently Microsoft is not the only one to
use > > Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?!
>
> All our header files are generated from XML descriptions and those are > also used in the debugger and build system. As to
copyright, the person > who typed in the names does it for the company
they are working for and, > as such, it is part of their job to ensure that
even trivial things are > copyrighted. Given the large number of registers
that some ARM chips > have, this is not a trivial task. Hence, a
copyright is an essential > part of software and product development to ensure
that a competitor
> does not simply steal your work.
>
> The copyright is on the item that was written. Philips copyright their > manuals and data sheets. However, I do not believe
they would stifle > product development by requiring tool vendors to
pay them a license fee > to use their peripheral register names. If they
did, they'd not be
> competetive.
>
> --
> Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
> CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
>
Reply by Leon Heller●January 17, 20062006-01-17
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Walsh" <tom@tom@...>
To: <lpc2000@lpc2...>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [lpc2000] LPC2103 in IAR EWARM
> Paul Curtis wrote:
>
>>Tom,
>>
>>
>>
>>>>With respect - if they are not distributing them yet -
>>>>
>>>>
>>>neither should you.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I presume they are copyrighted?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Probably patented too... Seems that a number of people slap a
>>>boilerplate copyright header into everything they do, even
>>>trivial code,
>>>or stuff that isn't theirs. e.g. header files describing
register
>>>locations and bit values / name. In the case of the header
>>>files, they
>>>are using the exact verbage as Philips.
>>>
>>>Now how can you justify asserting that you have a copywrite
>>>on something
>>>that isn't yours??? Apparently Microsoft is not the only one to
use
>>>Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>All our header files are generated from XML descriptions and those
are
>>also used in the debugger and build system. As to copyright, the
person
>>who typed in the names does it for the company they are working for
and,
>>as such, it is part of their job to ensure that even trivial things
are
>>copyrighted. Given the large number of registers that some ARM chips
>>have, this is not a trivial task. Hence, a copyright is an essential
>>part of software and product development to ensure that a competitor
>>does not simply steal your work.
>>
>>
>>
> Well, apparently you went to a different school than I did. Copyright
> can only be asserted on an original work, simply reformatting an
> existing work does not automagically create a copyright. Nor does
> "sweat" justify assigning a copyright. Respectfully, it is my
opinion
> that you spend some time looking into copyright practice.
FWIW, it used to be the case that anything written in the UK was
automatically copyright. I'm not sure if it still applies, though.
Leon
Reply by Paul Curtis●January 17, 20062006-01-17
Tom,
> Well, apparently you went to a different school
than I did.
Unless you went to Bournemouth School then, yes, I did indeed go to a
different school.
> Copyright can only be asserted on an original
work, simply
> reformatting an existing work does not automagically create
> a copyright.
Hell, I didn't simply reformat any of Philips documents. Constructing
an XML description of a part *is* an original work IMO. You don't get
anything other than numbers, names, and punctuation in the XML
description so it's hardly plagiarism.
> Nor does "sweat" justify assigning a
copyright.
You know what, I didn't claim it did.
> Respectfully, it is my opinion that you spend some
time looking into copyright practice.
I know all about copyright thanks. Given good ties with many silicon
manufacturers I'm happy with what our company produces and the copyright
we assert, and the same is true with other tool vendors I'm sure. This
is an argument I'm not being drawn into.
--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
