From: randyhyde on 10 Oct 2007 20:19
On Oct 8, 4:52 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote:
> <randyh...(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > That does *not* imply, however,
> > that FASM syntax is equal to, or even based on, NASM syntax.
> The facts are that both are based on TASM's ideal mode and the critical
> differences of syntax between NASM and TASM's ideal mode were incorporated
> into FASM's syntax. This makes FASM's syntax a derivative of NASM's. If it
> evolved into a completely different syntax, say HLA, that doesn't negate
> it's historical context.
I guess we can conclude, then:
1) all assemblers that use any of the mnemonics of the original Intel
ASM86 are just "derivatives" of ASM86 and their syntax is based on
2) HLA is, indeed, derived from MASM.
3) HLA must be a derivative of NASM, too.
Why, sir, you are absolutely correct. NASM syntax is taking over the
world. *Everything* is NASM syntax!
I realize that you're a NASM user and you feel the need to promote
NASM to make you feel better about yourself. But get real.
From: randyhyde on 10 Oct 2007 20:26
On Oct 8, 10:30 am, Betov <be...(a)free.fr> wrote:
> Gilles Chehade <ve...(a)evilkittens.org> écrivaitnews:slrnfgk3np.61.veins(a)evilkittens.org:
> > Oh yeah, I apologize as I did misread while making a confusion about you
> > and your friend throwing flowers at the GPL ;-)
> Sorry, but i don't understand if you are joking or not.
> In case you would be in some ironical mode, you have to
> know that i spent a significative part of my life at
> working full time for a GPLed Project (10 years), and
> that it is possibly not over, if my health goes well.
Please explain that "RosAsm Public License" that accompanies your
You can't release something under the RPL and claim to be a pro-GPL
person. The RPL is about as "anti-GPL" as they come.
And given comments you've made about GPL v3, it's pretty clear that
you're *decidedly* anti-GPL.
Or have you changed your mind? Do the new versions of RosAsm get
delivered under GPL v3.0?
From: Frank Kotler on 10 Oct 2007 20:32
> Here's a sample HLA function. Feel free to explain how FASM will
> compile this:
Herbert will write some macros? :)
From: Rod Pemberton on 11 Oct 2007 02:02
<randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
> So I guess the question is how one defines "unique", eh?
How the courts define unique.
> > You can't copyright PD code. It was copyrighted already.
> And a declaration of PD *assigns* that copyright, effectively.
No. The work is copyrighted automatically, post 1987. The US uses term
copyrights. Releasing a work into the PD expires the copyright term. It's
the same as if the copyright ran it's entire term or predated copyright
laws. And, since it was already copyrighted, it can't be copyright again
without being declared a new work by the courts.
> To whom the copyright is assigned, they can make any changes and
> recopyright the whole thing. Happens all the time. Ever seen notices
> on Microsoft software like "copyright 1997, 1998, 1999, ..."?
Ever not see notices on the works of Shakespeare or the King James Bible?
> If I hold the copyright to something, whether it's because I created
> it in the first place, or someone assigned that copyright to me, I
> have the write to make modifications and release that new artistic
> item under a new copyright.
But, there is no copyright on PD works, it expired.
> > So, depending on the
> > result, the modified code may be copyrightable or be PD.
> I guess it really depends on what you do with the "copyright" you
> obtain, eh?
No copyright was obtained. None exists. One did exist prior to designation
> For example, if you make a "one byte change" to the program and no one
> else has ever made that same one byte change, you clearly have a
> "unique" work. OTOH, if you make a trivial one-byte change (say, to
> fix a defect in the code) and someone else makes that same one-byte
> change (independently), I agree that you would have a hard time
> defending your "copyright" in court. But that's not what we're talking
> about here. We're talking about that second person taking a PD
> program, making some changes to the code, and not having to worry
> about being sued for what they've done (assuming, of course, they
> didn't intentionally copy what someone else has done).
You're just arguing semantics. Being in/from academia, you should know a
few professors of law. Why don't you discuss this with your academic
colleagues instead of trying to feed me (what I perceive to be) falsehoods?
In fact, print our posts out and have them review them. They can tell me
and you where we are wrong and right. Then you can add a "What every
programmer needs to know about copyrights and licenses esp. PD, GPL, and PD
from Germans" section to some book of yours. If I'm really wrong, it's
still possible that I've presented a valid but untested argument.
> > I've seen more
> > than a few GPL'd programs which are predominantly PD, but the author's
> > expectation that his changes are GPL'd could be wrong. His changes may
> > PD instead.
> Please show me *anyone* who has been sued and lost by taking PD code,
> changing it, and releasing it under a different license.
I already covered this. The original author isn't going to sue. Someone
representing the PD would need to sue. But, a commercial entity, say MS,
could sue on behalf of the PD and, as I see it, they could win on legal
grounds. If they did, it'd send a shockwave through the GPL community.
> as we *are* talking about *my* code here, when the author has made it
> *very clear* that anyone can do whatever they wish with the code;
> including making it a part of some GPL package.
No. Can't copyright it unless it's unique new work.
> > > And boy would they have a hard time suing them if they released all
> > > rights via a declaration of PD and then tried to retract them.
> > PD doesn't mean no rights.
> Of course not. What it means is that I've assigned non-exclusive
> rights to whomever wants to use the PD code.
No. It means the copyright term has been expired by the copyright holder.
> > By law, PD has one right: it can't be
> > copyrighted again.
> Well, it would be ridiculous if someone tried it -- as they would
> never be able to prove that a copyright violator didn't just grab the
> original code rather than the "copyrighted" version.
Are you confused? The original work earlier dated work clearly states it's
now PD. The new later dated work is claiming copyright.
> > This right can't be retracted and shouldn't be violated
> > IMO.
> If you don't want that "right" violated, then release your code under
> the GPL.
No need to. If I wanted, I could sue. That right is protected by law. The
goal of most PD authors is for zero rights to exist on the work. They don't
know that one exists by law.
> That's the purpose of the GPL -- to guarantee that the code
> and any modifications to it remain under the GPL.
No. The GPL guarantees the any modifications fall under the copyright of
the original author. The original author can use his copyright to release
the work under other licenses at the same time as the GPL or completely
revoke all licenses and sell the resulting copyrighted code. The former is
covered in the GPL FAQ. The FAQ avoids the later and PD issues. This has
occurred for at least one project I know of.
> The purpose of
> releasing something into the PD is to provide everyone free access to
> that thing without any restrictions (other than, perhaps, attempting
> to remove it from the PD).
That's true. But, intent and legalities aren't correlated.
> But if someone makes *a single byte
> change* to a PD program, who cares if they remove *that* from the PD?
> The original code is still there. The fact that a trivially different
> copyrighted version has now appeared doesn't *remove* the original
> code from the PD. And if the change *is* so trivial, then just about
> *anyone* with appropriate skill can replicate that new code.
Trivial modifications are not copyrightable. Supreme court decision. They
fall under the original copyright, which was expired when released into the
PD. Requirements of standards documents, e.g., keywords, syntax, headers of
the C language, are not copyrightable. Supreme court decision.
> > Such a tactic could "destroy" GPL code by forcing it to become PD.
> Incredibly hypothetical.
> It requires:
> 1) The GPL code to be trivially different from the PD version.
> 2) Someone who really cares enough to sue over it.
Take MS. Look at all the lawsuits against them that were hypothetically
lost before they were tried. They were always on the losing side pretrial
according to their opponents, the media, law scholars, attorney generals,
etc. MS won, repeatedly. They've got the money, brains, and track record
of winning "lost" cases.
> And what would be the end-result of this lawsuit? Why, the PD software
> is still in the PD. What has someone achieved with such a lawsuit?
They 1) removed the portion of the program which someone wanted copyrighted
and licensed under the GPL or 2) forced the entire program into the PD.
I.e., they eliminated all copyrights from the modified PD work. This allows
the code to be free of restrictions such as requiring source to be
distributed if linked with. I.e., MS could effectively "steal" applications
from the GPL codebase which defeats the purpose of the GPL.
> > This would be advantageous to a commercial enterprise which prefers to
> > have to comply with open source licensing requirements such as only
> > to open source code. They could then link.
> Uh, they could link against the original PD code. What are you talking
I'm talking about a GPL'd program which originated with PD code and has some
portion which the author wanted to keep copyrighted. If the entire work
doesn't qualify as a new unique work, then the code changes aren't
copyrightable but PD.
I'm reiterating my arguments way too much for my liking. It seems you
aren't fully reading, comprehending, or remembering them before you comment.
You need to reread my posts carefully when less enthused by the
From: Betov on 11 Oct 2007 03:46
"randyhyde(a)earthlink.net" <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> �crivait
> Then why do you keep talking about the "applications" they wrote?
Re-read the thread, clown.
I am talking about the fact that the pioneers works, in the times
of the Assembly Rebirth, were for programming Applications in full
Assembly, and that they failed, at the end, because MASM was not
the tool for the job.
< http://rosasm.org >