From: Ullrich von Bassewitz (uz_at_musoftware.de)
Date: 2002-03-28 12:48:20
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 02:53:36PM -0800, Adam Wozniak wrote:
> Let's forget for the moment that your email did not contain a copright notice.
This does not matter. You may want to read the article "10 Big Myths about
copyright explained" which is available as
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
Myth #1 covers your above claim.
> Let's forget for the moment that I spent time putting all the pieces together.
This does not matter because it doesn't have any effects on copyright. Just
because it costed someone months to circumvent a software protection device,
does not make the the action itself legal.
> Let's forget for the moment that it's ludicrous to claim ownership over the
> idea of using a struct and a #define to access a memory mapped device.
See Myth #6 in the article mentioned above. Not the letters of the alphabet
are protected, but the actual ideas expressed. It is your luck that I'm not the
one who had this idea originally (maybe I developed it myself, I don't
remember, but it has be in use for a long time before I used it the first
time).
> Let's forget for the moment that you had never seen a snip of 4 of the 6 files
> in the distribution before I released them.
Your .cfg and .s files are based on other peoples code. Both of your .h files
are based on my email. The license.txt file is from the FSF. I haven't looked
at your .c file, maybe you're really the author. I don't know about the
Makefile either.
> Let's forget for the moment that I really did write most of the assembly in
> the .S file.
Untrue. Even your zbss and cdsr routines are stripped down versions of my code
in zerobss.s and copydata.s. It is easy to see that you used these files as
templates when writing your code. But even if it would be true, writing "most
of it" is not enough to claim complete ownership and place it under a
restrictive license.
> As well as all of the .h files.
Untrue. Anyone who compares my email explaing to you how to do it with your
actual files can see that.
> And the .c file. And the
> Makefile.
True (maybe).
> Let's forget that your compiler would not support this target if I hadn't
> bothered.
So what does this have to do with copyright?
> Is there any way I could have supported this target with your compiler and
> GPL'd my work without upsetting you?
There is an easy way for this: Just ask. I have contributed to a lot of GPLed
projects.
> Are you truly upset with me, or the GPL?
I'm upset because of several things:
1. You claimed ownership over other peoples code and ideas.
2. You did not bother to give credit where credit is due.
3. You placed other peoples code under a license that prohibits these people
from using it.
4. You did not ask before doing so.
I have contributed to numerous open source projects in the last ten years. A
lot of them were GPLed, and I had no problem placing my own code under the
same license which means that my code in these projects is of course GPLed
too. The difference is that
1. I decided about the license myself. My code and ideas were not stolen and
put under the GPL.
2. The authors gave credit to me for code written by me or ideas that came
from me.
It is not that I dislike the GPL. I dislike GPL zealots and I don't use it for
my own projects, that is true. But the GPL has its uses as well as other
licenses.
To solve this issue, I will give permission to use the pieces of code
currently in the files you posted. I would suggest to give credit, but this is
not required. I will probably not use your code for inclusion with cc65. I'm
not sure about this decision. I know it would be nice for cc65 users to have
the atari 2600 as an additional target, but I have a bad feeling about it, and
there may be other problems as outlined below. However, I will sleep about it.
Maybe someone else comes up with a target library that is better suited for
inclusion in cc65.
Problems with a GPLed cc65 target library: GPLed cc65 modules would make the
complete program that includes such a module fall under the GPL. Since it is
almost impossible to write a program that does not also include code from the
runtime library, which is not GPLed and owned by other people, this is
impossible, since it would change the license for code written by other
people. So while anyone can write and offer GPLed modules for use with cc65,
it is almost impossible to use these modules in a complete program. This is
also true for your code. With my permission it is ok for you to GPL them, but
anyone using them in a program will violate either your copyright or that of
the writers of the runtime libraries.
I do really hate myself for being so restrictive, but since you are trying to
take away things from other people, I feel that I have to.
Regards
Uz
P.S.: I'm out of town until tomorrow. Discussions like this do really make me
feel sad:-(
--
Ullrich von Bassewitz uz_at_musoftware.de
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2002-03-28 12:49:18 CET