From: Ullrich von Bassewitz (uz_at_musoftware.de)
Date: 2002-03-29 23:35:52
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 09:58:21AM -0800, Adam Wozniak wrote:
> I work with embedded systems for a living, we do this sort of thing all the
> time. The idea is hardly new or original.
So then why did I have it explain to you?
> By your logic, I cannot be the sole author of anything.
Why do you think the FSF often does a clean room implementation of important
projects with developers who have never worked with the original software
thats functionality should be duplicated?
> Truth be told, I never looked at either of those files. Are you sure I stole
> them? Or is it possible that it's so simple that there just aren't many
> different ways to do them?
So how did you know what do do in these subroutines? How did you know that
these routines were needed? They are tightly coupled to the inner workings of
the compiler.
> Let's look again at something you wrote from above, heh?
>
> % (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).
>
> If I cannot claim ownership of that idea, then neither can you!
Let's look at some more I wrote above:
> > It is your luck that I'm not the one who had this idea originally
It is obvious from this sentence that I haven't claimed ownership for this
idea.
> I do not believe there was any technical solution to the problem of targetting
> that platform that would not have looked at all like the other targets.
> You would have claimed I stole stuff whether I did or not.
There are several targets written by other people and I have never claimed
that any of the authors stole stuff from me.
> In fact you did exactly that. I wrote the zbss and cdsr routines from
> scratch. I'm sorry if you don't believe me.
No, I don't believe you / yes, I think you're a liar. If you had told me "I
had a quick look at your code and then wrote the routines by my own" I would
have believed you. But claiming that you have written internal compiler
support routines (stuff that is nowhere documented!) without any further
knowledge and without a look at the existing code is ridiculous. Especially
since your code uses the same register combinations than the one you didn't
look at.
> Yes, the callstack / paramstack setup looks like yours.
Looks like mine? You have even copied my comments verbatim!
> Yes, the header files use an idea you mentioned, but that idea is hardly new
> or original either. You have no way of knowing whether I did that on my own,
> whether I "stole" the idea from you, whether I "stole" the idea from the
> linux kernel, or whether I "learned" it at school or at my job.
Yes, you are right, I cannot prove anything. Nothing makes your character
clearer than this paragraph. It is not about being moral or just fair, it's
about not being caught when steeling.
> Again my intent was not to upset you, but to make sure that my stuff stayed
> out there.
It is out there but it is unusable. Anyone using it for code that is
distributed will violate the cc65 license. I know that you don't care about
minor things like copyright and licenses, but hopefully other people do.
To bring this thing to an end: You are not worth my time. I have already given
permission to include my code with your files, but this does not change the
fact that they are not usable to do any real coding that is not only used in
house. I will try to ignore your further postings if I can.
Regards
Uz
--
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 : 2002-03-29 23:35:54 CET