On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 21:54:23 -0800, Albert Lee Mitchell wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 21:40:55 +0000, Bob Stephens wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 11:31:53 -0800, Albert Lee Mitchell wrote:
>> 
>>> [quoted text muted]
>> 
>> I debug C the same way I debug assembler or anything else. By writing debug
>> code. I also like to generate "life noises" like toggling a port bit on
>> entry to an ISR saying " I made it this far", also squirting out diagnostic
>> messages to a serial port.
>> 
>> Bob
> 
> 	That's not unsimilar to our methodology except we use the same code as
> the finished job will, not test code.  Using the serial port for
> diagnostic messages has a major impact on execution speed which I very
> much wish to avoid.
> 
> 	Without running the same code at the same speed you're not really
> exercising the final product.
>  
> -- Regards, Albert
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> AM Research, Inc.    			  The Embedded Systems Experts
> http://www.amresearch.com          			  916.780.7623
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes I agree. I was talking about debugging in the very preliminary stages
where you're not even sure if the oscillator is clocking the chip properly.

Bob

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 21:38:44 GMT, postmaster@noname.com (Ken Lee)
wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 19:39:48 +0000, Ian Bell
><ian@ruffrecordsDOTworldonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Alex Pavloff wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 Jan 2004 16:37:26 GMT, Hans-Bernhard Broeker
>>> <broeker@physik.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>And a rather large fraction of the verbiage in most EULAs is nothing
>>>>more than wishful thinking or attempted extortion.  At least outside
>>>>of the U.S. of A.'s legal system, that is.
>>> 
>>> EULA's legalities vary from US state to state.
>>
>>And the US is a relatively minor part of the world.
>
>Probably has more lawyers per capita  ;-)
>

1 per 10,000 last I heard.

George
==============================================
Send real email to GNEUNER2 at COMCAST dot NET

"Darin Johnson" <darin_@_usa_._net> wrote in message
news:cu1brpektbf.fsf@nokia.com...
> "David Brown" <david@no.westcontrol.spam.com> writes:
>
> > Fortunately, the gcc authors have thought these things through
> > rather carefully.
>
> I don't know if this has always been the case though.  I've been in
> situations where company lawyers have forbidden the use of GCC to
> build shipping products because of uncertainty in this matter.
>

It may not always have been the case, and you must still look into the
libraries (the main C library is not part of gcc), as things like glibc,
newlib, and target-specific libraries can all be different.  However, this
could also be the case of lawyers not really understanding the details, and
thus choosing to err on the side of caution.

"Darin Johnson" <darin_@_usa_._net> wrote in message
news:cu1u136j5qc.fsf@nokia.com...
> Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> writes:
>
> > > I think the GPL disallows this.
> >
> > The GPL can't disallow that.  The holder of the copyright still
> > holds the copyright.  He can distribute his work under as many
> > different licenses as he wants to.
>
> But if a second person modifies the code, the new resulting second
> revision belongs to both people, neither of which can assign a
> different license to a third party.  Let's say the original author
> completely revamps the code into a third revision.  The original
> author may be able to give away the original source under a new
> license, but he is no longer able to do that with the third revision.
> If he removes the second author's changes in order to create a fourth
> revision, that fourth revision is still a derivative work of both
> parties.
>

True...

> Essentially the original author loses control.  Which isn't a bad
> thing if the intent is to create open source software (collaborative
> work).
>

The author loses nothing - but he does not magically gain control over code
written by other people.  The copyright owner is free to release his own
code (source or binary) to anyone he wants using any licence he wants.  I
can write some code, add the gpl and send the source to Grant Edwards.  I
can then take the same code and add a licence that says the user may not
drink Pepsi while running the code, and sell it to you for a thousand
dollars.  That's perfectly within my rights.  However, I can't stop Grant
passing his gpl'ed copy on to you.  And if he makes changes to the code, he
can pass them on to both of us - but I can't incorperate these changes into
the no-Pepsi licenced version unless Grant says I can.

For companies which rely on dual-licenced software (such as MySQL - you can
get it in gpl'ed version, or as a non-gpl'ed version which you can then
combine with other non-gpl source), this is a vital issue - they simply
cannot accept patches and modifications from outside unless the patch author
agrees to sign over the copyright of the patch (as many will do for trivial
code snippets).  If someone wants to make a major change to the code, then
it must be maintained as a seperate fork under a seperate name.  This also
applies to other projects where the main authors like to keep the copyright
of all code (which is the case for all FSF GNU projects, and many large
open-source projects).

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 21:40:55 +0000, Bob Stephens wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 11:31:53 -0800, Albert Lee Mitchell wrote:
> 
>> [quoted text muted]
> 
> I debug C the same way I debug assembler or anything else. By writing debug
> code. I also like to generate "life noises" like toggling a port bit on
> entry to an ISR saying " I made it this far", also squirting out diagnostic
> messages to a serial port.
> 
> Bob

	That's not unsimilar to our methodology except we use the same code as
the finished job will, not test code.  Using the serial port for
diagnostic messages has a major impact on execution speed which I very
much wish to avoid.

	Without running the same code at the same speed you're not really
exercising the final product.
 
-- Regards, Albert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AM Research, Inc.    			  The Embedded Systems Experts
http://www.amresearch.com          			  916.780.7623
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Stephens said...

> I debug C the same way I debug assembler or anything else. By writing debug
> code. I also like to generate "life noises" like toggling a port bit on
> entry to an ISR saying " I made it this far", also squirting out diagnostic
> messages to a serial port.

I like to toggle test points and watch those on an oscilloscope.  
I monitor events and the duration of interrupt routines this way.


Casey

In article <cu1u136j5qc.fsf@nokia.com>, Darin Johnson wrote:
> Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> writes:
> 
>> > I think the GPL disallows this.
>> 
>> The GPL can't disallow that.  The holder of the copyright still
>> holds the copyright.  He can distribute his work under as many
>> different licenses as he wants to.
> 
> But if a second person modifies the code, the new resulting
> second revision belongs to both people, neither of which can
> assign a different license to a third party.

Could be, but that wasn't what I thought was being discussed.
The original author can still license the original work under
any license he pleases. I thought that was what you claimed was
prohibited.

> Let's say the original author completely revamps the code into
> a third revision.  The original author may be able to give
> away the original source under a new license, but he is no
> longer able to do that with the third revision.

If the third revision contains material for which he doesn't
hold the copyright, then he only has the rights granted to him
by the person who does hold the copyright.

> If he removes the second author's changes in order to create a
> fourth revision, that fourth revision is still a derivative
> work of both parties.

If he wanted to do that, he should start with his orginal
version, so that there is no question of the "third" revision
containing any work for which he doesn't hold the copyrights.

> Essentially the original author loses control.

No. He still has complete control over his original work.  He
does not have control over the other person's work -- but he
never did, so he didn't loose anything.

> Which isn't a bad thing if the intent is to create open source
> software (collaborative work).

I still don't see what the original author has lost...

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  YOW!! I am having
                                  at               FUN!!
                               visi.com            

Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> writes:

> > I think the GPL disallows this.
> 
> The GPL can't disallow that.  The holder of the copyright still
> holds the copyright.  He can distribute his work under as many
> different licenses as he wants to.

But if a second person modifies the code, the new resulting second
revision belongs to both people, neither of which can assign a
different license to a third party.  Let's say the original author
completely revamps the code into a third revision.  The original
author may be able to give away the original source under a new
license, but he is no longer able to do that with the third revision.
If he removes the second author's changes in order to create a fourth
revision, that fourth revision is still a derivative work of both
parties.

Essentially the original author loses control.  Which isn't a bad
thing if the intent is to create open source software (collaborative
work).

-- 
Darin Johnson
    "Look here.  There's a crop circle in my ficus!"  -- The Tick

In article <cu1fzeqktgg.fsf@nokia.com>, Darin Johnson wrote:
> "David Brown" <david@no.westcontrol.spam.com> writes:
> 
>> But these authors (or, more precisely, copyright
>> owners) almost always have contact email addresses - it is simply a matter
>> of asking them for alternate licences.
> 
> I think the GPL disallows this.

The GPL can't disallow that.  The holder of the copyright still
holds the copyright.  He can distribute his work under as many
different licenses as he wants to.

> Once at least one person has a copy
> of the GPL'd source code, you can't apply a different license for
> someone else.

That disagrees with everything I've read in and about the GPL.

> The author gives up his rights as a side effect.

Wha?  I don't remember anything in the GPL that prohibits the
owner of the copyright from doing anything under other licenses
-- and I don't understand how it could.  The GPL is a set of
terms imposed _by_ the owner of the copyright.

> Or at least that's the claim I've heard in a debate on this in
> the past.

Sounds like bunk to me.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  I just bought
                                  at               FLATBUSH from MICKEY
                               visi.com            MANTLE!

"David Brown" <david@no.westcontrol.spam.com> writes:

> Fortunately, the gcc authors have thought these things through
> rather carefully.

I don't know if this has always been the case though.  I've been in
situations where company lawyers have forbidden the use of GCC to
build shipping products because of uncertainty in this matter.

-- 
Darin Johnson
    Caution! Under no circumstances confuse the mesh with the
    interleave operator, except under confusing circumstances!