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..."
----------------
LPC2103 in IAR EWARM
Started by ●January 17, 2006
Reply by ●January 17, 20062006-01-17
Reply by ●January 17, 20062006-01-17
Tom,
> 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
> 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 ●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.
Regards,
Richard.
http://www.FreeRTOS.org
> 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.
Regards,
Richard.
http://www.FreeRTOS.org
Reply by ●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 ●January 17, 20062006-01-17
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..."
> > ----------------
> >
>
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 ●January 17, 20062006-01-17
brendanmurphy37 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) >
You are confusing copyright with compensation.
Regards,
TomW
--
Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant
http://openhardware.net, http://cyberiansoftware.com
"Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..."
----------------
>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.
Regards,
TomW
--
Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant
http://openhardware.net, http://cyberiansoftware.com
"Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..."
----------------
