#221 From: "os2bird" <bird@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 7:31 pm
Subject: Re: Unable to help: LEGAL issues must be cleared outfirst!!! os2bird
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
>Hi,
>
>> If you add that text, like OpenBeOS, it will be
up to the individual
>> developer if he feels 'clean' enough to
participate. Though if someone
>> gives the impression to have sources and still
works on the project that
>> will still be problemous.
>>
>> You problem now, is that few will believe that
the members of osFree
>> haven't seen any sources.
>
>?????
>
>Knut, do you understand that by making this
statement (and
>after all that has been discovered on this list
about
>"leaked" sources) and abiding to it, you shouldn't
be able
>to buy nearly any more OS/2 software?
Sorry, but I cannot see that.
But I can refere which possible project OpenBeOS
did see if members peeked into
any leeked sources...
>One example: did you download the Flash 5 player?
Well, one of
>the most influent members of Innotek has
implicitely admitted
>here the he has the leaked sources.
I cannot see anyone but ltning addmitting that.
>And what about VirtualPC? And Odin? And Opera?
Could you please explain the problem to me and all
the others? I see no problem
with any of these products you mentions.
Just one piece of advice for you before the
weekend:
clamn down!
Kind Regards,
knut
Part 8 - Feb 22 2002
Re: Part 8
#222 From: "os2bird" <bird@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 7:31 pm
Subject: Re: Unable to help: LEGAL issues must be cleared outfirst!!! os2bird
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
>Hi,
>
>> If you add that text, like OpenBeOS, it will be
up to the individual
>> developer if he feels 'clean' enough to
participate. Though if someone
>> gives the impression to have sources and still
works on the project that
>> will still be problemous.
>>
>> You problem now, is that few will believe that
the members of osFree
>> haven't seen any sources.
>
>?????
>
>Knut, do you understand that by making this
statement (and
>after all that has been discovered on this list
about
>"leaked" sources) and abiding to it, you shouldn't
be able
>to buy nearly any more OS/2 software?
Sorry, but I cannot see that.
But I can refere which possible project OpenBeOS
did see if members peeked into
any leeked sources...
>One example: did you download the Flash 5 player?
Well, one of
>the most influent members of Innotek has
implicitely admitted
>here the he has the leaked sources.
I cannot see anyone but ltning addmitting that.
>And what about VirtualPC? And Odin? And Opera?
Could you please explain the problem to me and all
the others? I see no problem
with any of these products you mentions.
Just one piece of advice for you before the
weekend:
clamn down!
Kind Regards,
knut
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 7:31 pm
Subject: Re: Unable to help: LEGAL issues must be cleared outfirst!!! os2bird
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
>Hi,
>
>> If you add that text, like OpenBeOS, it will be
up to the individual
>> developer if he feels 'clean' enough to
participate. Though if someone
>> gives the impression to have sources and still
works on the project that
>> will still be problemous.
>>
>> You problem now, is that few will believe that
the members of osFree
>> haven't seen any sources.
>
>?????
>
>Knut, do you understand that by making this
statement (and
>after all that has been discovered on this list
about
>"leaked" sources) and abiding to it, you shouldn't
be able
>to buy nearly any more OS/2 software?
Sorry, but I cannot see that.
But I can refere which possible project OpenBeOS
did see if members peeked into
any leeked sources...
>One example: did you download the Flash 5 player?
Well, one of
>the most influent members of Innotek has
implicitely admitted
>here the he has the leaked sources.
I cannot see anyone but ltning addmitting that.
>And what about VirtualPC? And Odin? And Opera?
Could you please explain the problem to me and all
the others? I see no problem
with any of these products you mentions.
Just one piece of advice for you before the
weekend:
clamn down!
Kind Regards,
knut
Re: Part 8
#223 From: "raprapand" <andersand666@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 7:31 pm
Subject: Re: My take on this.. Not legal to use IBM source raprapand
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
--- In osFree@y..., "JMA" <mail@j...> wrote:
>
> I have never seen a case where someone (willingly or not) gives
> away copies of someones writing and gets sued for that.
Why don't you just ask Napster - it's the same laws that applies to
music as to writing, painting and programming.
I do hope that we one day will have an open source version of OS/2,
and if that is not possible - that wps/pm will be portet to run on
another platform, Linux, Windows or whatever (don't know if this is
possible, I'm not a programmer).
Regards Kim Ludvigsen
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 7:31 pm
Subject: Re: My take on this.. Not legal to use IBM source raprapand
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
--- In osFree@y..., "JMA" <mail@j...> wrote:
>
> I have never seen a case where someone (willingly or not) gives
> away copies of someones writing and gets sued for that.
Why don't you just ask Napster - it's the same laws that applies to
music as to writing, painting and programming.
I do hope that we one day will have an open source version of OS/2,
and if that is not possible - that wps/pm will be portet to run on
another platform, Linux, Windows or whatever (don't know if this is
possible, I'm not a programmer).
Regards Kim Ludvigsen
Re: Part 8
#224 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 7:37 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Unable to help: LEGAL issues must be cleared out first!!! mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:59:19 +0100 (CET), bird@... wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, JMA wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:30:41 -0000, os2bird wrote:
>>
>> >It will _never_ be clean if these legal issues
>> >remain unsolved.
>> >
>> I dont quite follow you.
>As long as osFree is associated with legally unconfirmed binaries it will
>not be clean.
>
Thats a nice statement "legally unconfirmed" ?
I assume I would say "doubtful origins"
But this discussion will not lead anywhere, and I think you know that,
I doubt there are any major opensource project that has *no* doubtful parts.
I'v been toid that for example ODIN has stuff that might be have been
found out in a way thats illegal in your country.
I have a suggestion though:
Lets give the TPE team a chance to defend themselves
Lets give them, say 2 weeks to put their cards on the table.
If we get no responce in two weeks then we remove the work they did !
I could do it the other way around (remove it now) but then I stand the
risk of loosing 50% of the people that wants to help forever instead of
gaining your help in two weeks.
What do you think ??
>> I'll ensure the TPE distro is removed as soon as its
>> proven "build from leaks". But I cannot take arguments
>> like Eiriks: "I have the sources so I would know !"
>> His arguments are far to dangerous !
>>
>>
>Yeah, but I would try stay out of court in the first place, not having to
>prove anything is legal..
While thats right it may very well force you into doing nothing.
One person started screaming "illegal" her a few days ago and started
to describe his own project. Thats can be though of as biased.
And I think lots of big corps would gladly do just that to ensure their
product wins (I would not be surprised if MS have done it).
Did IBM not do that agains Phoenix when they started to build clone BIOS'es ?
Out comes someone that seems seroius (you) and you on the other hand
have doubts (not 100% certain) yourself if this is "source rip"/disass or legal.
I know about your work in Odin so I would trust you more than people "with the
code".
>>
>> >It's interseting what OpenBeOS states about the
>> >same problem in they're faq:
>> >http://open-beos.sourceforge.net/faq.php
>> >
>> OK let me say I added this to osFree:
>>
================================================================================
===================
>> I heard a rumor that some official IBM OS/2 source code has been leaked. That
would be great for the osFree project, right?
>>
>> Wrong !
>>
>> To be crystal clear about this, osFree wants in no way to come in contact
with or be associated with any leaked IBM OS/2 source code.
>> Having access to that code could potentially be very damaging to the project,
not to mention a legal nightmare.
>>
================================================================================
===================
>>
>> Would this mean that everone that has seen the sources will not be able to
participate ?
>> In that case I must (if I'm to believe Eirik) remove most professional OS/2
developers from the project.
>>
>> Or should I just ignore that lots of people that more or less admits they
have the sources and go ahead anyway ?
>>
>> Thats why I wrote the rule as I did. If you have seen the source I dont want
you to be left out. But I dont want any IBM OS/2 source
>> code in osFree unless IBM allows us !
>
>If you add that text, like OpenBeOS, it will be up to the individual
>developer if he feels 'clean' enough to participate.
>
I know thats why they wrote it that way, lots of people will sit there with the
leaked sources as use them to
build the OS. But do you think thats OK as long as they dont say it ??
To strictly follow US laws - just the possibility that you may have had access
to the source - will disqualify you.
The thing is (and I will not force you to answer)
Should I allow people to join the project and write stuff even though I know or
suspect they have access to the source ?
I can do it and then "forget" who I know has it (unless theyare dumb enough to
say it out loud)...
>Your problem now, is that few will believe that the members of osFree
>haven't seen any sources.
>
Well, just like I dont intend to give out and names of people that have admitted
to havin the
source and even asked me if I can find items they need...
I'm not going to give out (the few) names I know from the osFree team.
None of the people that has come forward and wanted to help is - as far as I
know -part of
the TPE team. Only me and one more on the list that I know of has contibuted to
the TPE:
- I fixed the readme's and put it on hobbes.
- One other person did the boot logo.
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 7:37 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Unable to help: LEGAL issues must be cleared out first!!! mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:59:19 +0100 (CET), bird@... wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, JMA wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:30:41 -0000, os2bird wrote:
>>
>> >It will _never_ be clean if these legal issues
>> >remain unsolved.
>> >
>> I dont quite follow you.
>As long as osFree is associated with legally unconfirmed binaries it will
>not be clean.
>
Thats a nice statement "legally unconfirmed" ?
I assume I would say "doubtful origins"
But this discussion will not lead anywhere, and I think you know that,
I doubt there are any major opensource project that has *no* doubtful parts.
I'v been toid that for example ODIN has stuff that might be have been
found out in a way thats illegal in your country.
I have a suggestion though:
Lets give the TPE team a chance to defend themselves
Lets give them, say 2 weeks to put their cards on the table.
If we get no responce in two weeks then we remove the work they did !
I could do it the other way around (remove it now) but then I stand the
risk of loosing 50% of the people that wants to help forever instead of
gaining your help in two weeks.
What do you think ??
>> I'll ensure the TPE distro is removed as soon as its
>> proven "build from leaks". But I cannot take arguments
>> like Eiriks: "I have the sources so I would know !"
>> His arguments are far to dangerous !
>>
>>
>Yeah, but I would try stay out of court in the first place, not having to
>prove anything is legal..
While thats right it may very well force you into doing nothing.
One person started screaming "illegal" her a few days ago and started
to describe his own project. Thats can be though of as biased.
And I think lots of big corps would gladly do just that to ensure their
product wins (I would not be surprised if MS have done it).
Did IBM not do that agains Phoenix when they started to build clone BIOS'es ?
Out comes someone that seems seroius (you) and you on the other hand
have doubts (not 100% certain) yourself if this is "source rip"/disass or legal.
I know about your work in Odin so I would trust you more than people "with the
code".
>>
>> >It's interseting what OpenBeOS states about the
>> >same problem in they're faq:
>> >http://open-beos.sourceforge.net/faq.php
>> >
>> OK let me say I added this to osFree:
>>
================================================================================
===================
>> I heard a rumor that some official IBM OS/2 source code has been leaked. That
would be great for the osFree project, right?
>>
>> Wrong !
>>
>> To be crystal clear about this, osFree wants in no way to come in contact
with or be associated with any leaked IBM OS/2 source code.
>> Having access to that code could potentially be very damaging to the project,
not to mention a legal nightmare.
>>
================================================================================
===================
>>
>> Would this mean that everone that has seen the sources will not be able to
participate ?
>> In that case I must (if I'm to believe Eirik) remove most professional OS/2
developers from the project.
>>
>> Or should I just ignore that lots of people that more or less admits they
have the sources and go ahead anyway ?
>>
>> Thats why I wrote the rule as I did. If you have seen the source I dont want
you to be left out. But I dont want any IBM OS/2 source
>> code in osFree unless IBM allows us !
>
>If you add that text, like OpenBeOS, it will be up to the individual
>developer if he feels 'clean' enough to participate.
>
I know thats why they wrote it that way, lots of people will sit there with the
leaked sources as use them to
build the OS. But do you think thats OK as long as they dont say it ??
To strictly follow US laws - just the possibility that you may have had access
to the source - will disqualify you.
The thing is (and I will not force you to answer)
Should I allow people to join the project and write stuff even though I know or
suspect they have access to the source ?
I can do it and then "forget" who I know has it (unless theyare dumb enough to
say it out loud)...
>Your problem now, is that few will believe that the members of osFree
>haven't seen any sources.
>
Well, just like I dont intend to give out and names of people that have admitted
to havin the
source and even asked me if I can find items they need...
I'm not going to give out (the few) names I know from the osFree team.
None of the people that has come forward and wanted to help is - as far as I
know -part of
the TPE team. Only me and one more on the list that I know of has contibuted to
the TPE:
- I fixed the readme's and put it on hobbes.
- One other person did the boot logo.
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Re: Part 8
#225 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 7:39 pm
Subject: Re: Re: license issues (GPL or not) mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:55:12 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:
>>
>> >- allow distributors to sell osFree.
>> No
>Why not after all that is what happens with Linux as well. And after
>all you normally pay not for the OS
>but for media, dokumentation, installer and the possibility to get
>support.
>
Hey what you say is below.
Noone is allowed to charge money for Linux, thats what I want.
Put it on a CD and charege for the CD, thats OK !
Its a bit silly but it works.
Also, any distribution of osFree must allways be with the licence
unmodified and with the full source.
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 7:39 pm
Subject: Re: Re: license issues (GPL or not) mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:55:12 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:
>>
>> >- allow distributors to sell osFree.
>> No
>Why not after all that is what happens with Linux as well. And after
>all you normally pay not for the OS
>but for media, dokumentation, installer and the possibility to get
>support.
>
Hey what you say is below.
Noone is allowed to charge money for Linux, thats what I want.
Put it on a CD and charege for the CD, thats OK !
Its a bit silly but it works.
Also, any distribution of osFree must allways be with the licence
unmodified and with the full source.
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Re: Part 8
#226 From: "Lynn H. Maxson" <lmaxson@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 7:48 pm
Subject: Re: OSFree and our future lynnmaxson
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Michal Necasek writes:
"I knew this was going to be fun!"
Let's hope it remains that way.
"That's exactly what I don't believe. Because the computing scene
is evolving far faster than you seem to realize. Experiences from
20 years ago are quite possibly completely useless today. User
requirements are changing constantly. That is the problem."
User requirements change constantly. That's not the problem. The
problem lies in responding to those changes as quickly as they
occur, not allowing them to pile up in a backlog. If you have to
talk about 20 (or 50) year experiences useless in solving this,
look no further than your edit-compile-execute paradigm. Look no
further than your compiler. It's the same tool, the same process,
used in going from 1st generation (machine or actual) to 2nd
(symbolic assembly) to 3rd (HLL procedural/imperative) to 4th (HLL
declarative/logic programming) languages. A single compile will
only produce a single executable, not a system of executables.
We call it an operating "system" for a reason. It's an
integrated, i.e. seamless fit, of inter-related (and -connected)
components. We specify it as a system, an unordered set of
specifications. We analyse it as a system. We design it as a
system. We construct it piecewise. We test it from individual
pieces (unit testing) to larger groupings (integrated testing) to
the largest grouping (system testing). In every stage except
construction we can deal with it as a system.
Therein lies the problem: the inability of our software tools to
construct it as a system in a single unit of work.
"I'm afraid you've lost me there. Maybe analogies are bad after
all."
I didn't mean to lose you. Software engineering whether engaged
in OO, functional programming, or procedural logic has held that
reusable components exist. In fact they do. Otherwise there
would be no need for subroutines, only in-line coding.
The problem is that in manufacturing you make a distinction
between an elementary component which doesn't decompose further
and a non-elementary component which does. The elementary
component is called a raw material. The non-elementary component
is called an assembly. A non-elementary component decomposes into
other non-elementary or elementary components. The point of it
all is that the whole must decompose eventually into a set of
elementary components, i.e. raw materials. A list in
manufacturing which shows this decomposition from highest assembly
level under concern to raw material is a "bill of material" or
BOM.
The fact of the matter is that the raw material of source code is
the source statement. Everything produced in code using a
collection of these is an assembly. A function is an assembly.
An object is an assembly. A program is an assembly. A procedure
is an assembly. A subroutine is an assembly. An application
system is an assembly. An operating system is an assembly.
What they all have in common is the source statement whether
machine code, symbolic assembly, or HLL. The source statement is
the raw material of programming. All assemblies ultimately
decompose into these units. If assemblies (objects, subroutines,
etc.) are reusable, then by definition so too are the source
statements into which they decompose.
Yet we insist on the use of source files as the fundamental input
units to a compile. These source files themselves as assemblies.
None of our tools allows us to input or deal with source
statements as raw material, as reusable components, only files or
other assemblies. Unless we do treat source statements as our raw
material on which we construct all higher level assemblies and
assemblies of assemblies we will not achieve a "true"
manufacturing approach.
Source statements are reusable components. If they are, there
should only be one copy, one instance, of every source statement
in our source database. That copy should have a name, possibly
context-based just as we have a name for every assembly. That
means that every named assembly consists of the names of lower
level components which may in turn consist of lower level
components until we ultimately have only a set of raw material,
our bill of material.
With this we have the opportunity of a true manufacturing process
based on reusable assemblies of reusable source statements (raw
material). This is a new paradigm, not present nor supported by
tools based on initial compiler concepts of the
edit-compile-execute model. In such a system source files do not
exist and thus no support for an "include" function exists.
That's because the "include" statement requires a name (or a
source file).
If every statement (raw material) has a name and every assembly
has a name, then the input consists only of a single name, the
highest level assembly. The assembly in turn contains a list of
names of other (lower-level) assemblies and raw material. The
process continues its decomposition until you have all of the raw
material, the source statements in their order of appearance.
The opposite of a bill of material, which is a "what used"
listing, is a "where used" listing of a raw material (source
statement) or an assembly. Having it at the source statement
level has particular significance in change management. Coupling
this with a single source database where each source statement is
a row in a single table with a directory listing of all source
statements and assemblies allows global viewing (across all
systems) of the impact of change.
Before this assumes book form let me assure you that it is not I,
but the OO advocates, who are locked into yesterday's
technology.<g> It is not I who says you cannot compile an entire
application or operating system as a single unit of work. I say
the system should automatically support statement reuse. The
programming languages should support it. The tools that support
the programming languages should support it. When they do then
software engineering will have the same manufacturing processes as
other engineering disciplines.
"Actually, there is a lot of good in OOP, only it's rather
difficult to separate the good stuff from the hype. And most
(all?) of the good is not really new, just repackaged."
The fact of the matter is that the client is entitled to the least
cost system using the least system resources with the least errors
(highest quality) executing in the least time. It is our job as
software engineers to have tools and processes that provide this
for our clients. The problem with OO is not that it doesn't work,
because it does, but that it moves us further from what we should
be providing our clients than what it replaced.
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 7:48 pm
Subject: Re: OSFree and our future lynnmaxson
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Michal Necasek writes:
"I knew this was going to be fun!"
Let's hope it remains that way.
"That's exactly what I don't believe. Because the computing scene
is evolving far faster than you seem to realize. Experiences from
20 years ago are quite possibly completely useless today. User
requirements are changing constantly. That is the problem."
User requirements change constantly. That's not the problem. The
problem lies in responding to those changes as quickly as they
occur, not allowing them to pile up in a backlog. If you have to
talk about 20 (or 50) year experiences useless in solving this,
look no further than your edit-compile-execute paradigm. Look no
further than your compiler. It's the same tool, the same process,
used in going from 1st generation (machine or actual) to 2nd
(symbolic assembly) to 3rd (HLL procedural/imperative) to 4th (HLL
declarative/logic programming) languages. A single compile will
only produce a single executable, not a system of executables.
We call it an operating "system" for a reason. It's an
integrated, i.e. seamless fit, of inter-related (and -connected)
components. We specify it as a system, an unordered set of
specifications. We analyse it as a system. We design it as a
system. We construct it piecewise. We test it from individual
pieces (unit testing) to larger groupings (integrated testing) to
the largest grouping (system testing). In every stage except
construction we can deal with it as a system.
Therein lies the problem: the inability of our software tools to
construct it as a system in a single unit of work.
"I'm afraid you've lost me there. Maybe analogies are bad after
all."
I didn't mean to lose you. Software engineering whether engaged
in OO, functional programming, or procedural logic has held that
reusable components exist. In fact they do. Otherwise there
would be no need for subroutines, only in-line coding.
The problem is that in manufacturing you make a distinction
between an elementary component which doesn't decompose further
and a non-elementary component which does. The elementary
component is called a raw material. The non-elementary component
is called an assembly. A non-elementary component decomposes into
other non-elementary or elementary components. The point of it
all is that the whole must decompose eventually into a set of
elementary components, i.e. raw materials. A list in
manufacturing which shows this decomposition from highest assembly
level under concern to raw material is a "bill of material" or
BOM.
The fact of the matter is that the raw material of source code is
the source statement. Everything produced in code using a
collection of these is an assembly. A function is an assembly.
An object is an assembly. A program is an assembly. A procedure
is an assembly. A subroutine is an assembly. An application
system is an assembly. An operating system is an assembly.
What they all have in common is the source statement whether
machine code, symbolic assembly, or HLL. The source statement is
the raw material of programming. All assemblies ultimately
decompose into these units. If assemblies (objects, subroutines,
etc.) are reusable, then by definition so too are the source
statements into which they decompose.
Yet we insist on the use of source files as the fundamental input
units to a compile. These source files themselves as assemblies.
None of our tools allows us to input or deal with source
statements as raw material, as reusable components, only files or
other assemblies. Unless we do treat source statements as our raw
material on which we construct all higher level assemblies and
assemblies of assemblies we will not achieve a "true"
manufacturing approach.
Source statements are reusable components. If they are, there
should only be one copy, one instance, of every source statement
in our source database. That copy should have a name, possibly
context-based just as we have a name for every assembly. That
means that every named assembly consists of the names of lower
level components which may in turn consist of lower level
components until we ultimately have only a set of raw material,
our bill of material.
With this we have the opportunity of a true manufacturing process
based on reusable assemblies of reusable source statements (raw
material). This is a new paradigm, not present nor supported by
tools based on initial compiler concepts of the
edit-compile-execute model. In such a system source files do not
exist and thus no support for an "include" function exists.
That's because the "include" statement requires a name (or a
source file).
If every statement (raw material) has a name and every assembly
has a name, then the input consists only of a single name, the
highest level assembly. The assembly in turn contains a list of
names of other (lower-level) assemblies and raw material. The
process continues its decomposition until you have all of the raw
material, the source statements in their order of appearance.
The opposite of a bill of material, which is a "what used"
listing, is a "where used" listing of a raw material (source
statement) or an assembly. Having it at the source statement
level has particular significance in change management. Coupling
this with a single source database where each source statement is
a row in a single table with a directory listing of all source
statements and assemblies allows global viewing (across all
systems) of the impact of change.
Before this assumes book form let me assure you that it is not I,
but the OO advocates, who are locked into yesterday's
technology.<g> It is not I who says you cannot compile an entire
application or operating system as a single unit of work. I say
the system should automatically support statement reuse. The
programming languages should support it. The tools that support
the programming languages should support it. When they do then
software engineering will have the same manufacturing processes as
other engineering disciplines.
"Actually, there is a lot of good in OOP, only it's rather
difficult to separate the good stuff from the hype. And most
(all?) of the good is not really new, just repackaged."
The fact of the matter is that the client is entitled to the least
cost system using the least system resources with the least errors
(highest quality) executing in the least time. It is our job as
software engineers to have tools and processes that provide this
for our clients. The problem with OO is not that it doesn't work,
because it does, but that it moves us further from what we should
be providing our clients than what it replaced.
Re: Part 8
#227 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 8:00 pm
Subject: Re: Laws, legal mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:31:49 -0000, raprapand wrote:
>--- In osFree@y..., "JMA" <mail@j...> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have never seen a case where someone (willingly or not) gives
>> away copies of someones writing and gets sued for that.
>
>Why don't you just ask Napster - it's the same laws that applies to
>music as to writing, painting and programming.
>
And look what happens in Taiwan just now.
Hire a video on the net for $3, no money to the producers.
Btw, according to swedish laws downloading from Napster would not
give you any punisment.
Laws are different in different countries.
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 8:00 pm
Subject: Re: Laws, legal mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:31:49 -0000, raprapand wrote:
>--- In osFree@y..., "JMA" <mail@j...> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have never seen a case where someone (willingly or not) gives
>> away copies of someones writing and gets sued for that.
>
>Why don't you just ask Napster - it's the same laws that applies to
>music as to writing, painting and programming.
>
And look what happens in Taiwan just now.
Hire a video on the net for $3, no money to the producers.
Btw, according to swedish laws downloading from Napster would not
give you any punisment.
Laws are different in different countries.
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Re: Part 8
#228 From: "drittervonfuenf" <3rdof5@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 8:03 pm
Subject: Re: license issues (GPL or not) drittervonfuenf
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
> Noone is allowed to charge money for Linux, thats what I want.
Thats simply not true, everybody is allowed to charge money for Linux,
read and understand the GPL.
The q is why should I pay for something which I can get for free from
an other source.
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 8:03 pm
Subject: Re: license issues (GPL or not) drittervonfuenf
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
> Noone is allowed to charge money for Linux, thats what I want.
Thats simply not true, everybody is allowed to charge money for Linux,
read and understand the GPL.
The q is why should I pay for something which I can get for free from
an other source.
Re: Part 8
#229 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 8:08 pm
Subject: Re: Legalese mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:44:11 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:
>> In 2006 IBM will stop supporting OS/2.
>As of 1978 IBM stoped supporting one of it Mainfrain OSes in 2002,
>there are still customers using it and people at IBM doing support/adding
>features to it. Thats 24 Years after the offical end of support date.
>
Yup, and why do these people go to IBM ?
Since IBM has the IP to the product ?
No, since IBM is the best place to find support/developers for it.
I can assure you IBM Global services would give you service and support for
your SCO Unix if you pay for it.
>
>Well the IP laws are quite clear, you loose the right
>to call something your IP if you don't enforce enfringements of the
>IP. Thats why companies like
>adidas sue webpages which offer their logo as a mobil logo download.
>They have to they are legaly bound to
>do so. So what would IBM loose, nothing much just complete IP to OS/2.
>
Yes, but the IP IBM has is to a product called OS/2.
Unless you release a product called OS/2 why should they care for their IP.
Look at all the Windows clones out there, ony one has as far as I know
got into problem with MS - Lindows. And that was becouse its *name*
was so close to Windows.
>And remember IBM makes money with
>this even when not selling OS/2. OLE in windows is based
>on OS/2 IP and MS pays IBM for the rigth to use it.
>
Yup OLE may be partly based on a product called IBM OS/2(tm).
The current source is probably not.
MS pays since they once many yeras ago wrote a contract with
IBM to licence the technology.
How would this relate to someone using the IBM OS/2 source
to build an OS called something else ?
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 8:08 pm
Subject: Re: Legalese mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:44:11 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:
>> In 2006 IBM will stop supporting OS/2.
>As of 1978 IBM stoped supporting one of it Mainfrain OSes in 2002,
>there are still customers using it and people at IBM doing support/adding
>features to it. Thats 24 Years after the offical end of support date.
>
Yup, and why do these people go to IBM ?
Since IBM has the IP to the product ?
No, since IBM is the best place to find support/developers for it.
I can assure you IBM Global services would give you service and support for
your SCO Unix if you pay for it.
>
>Well the IP laws are quite clear, you loose the right
>to call something your IP if you don't enforce enfringements of the
>IP. Thats why companies like
>adidas sue webpages which offer their logo as a mobil logo download.
>They have to they are legaly bound to
>do so. So what would IBM loose, nothing much just complete IP to OS/2.
>
Yes, but the IP IBM has is to a product called OS/2.
Unless you release a product called OS/2 why should they care for their IP.
Look at all the Windows clones out there, ony one has as far as I know
got into problem with MS - Lindows. And that was becouse its *name*
was so close to Windows.
>And remember IBM makes money with
>this even when not selling OS/2. OLE in windows is based
>on OS/2 IP and MS pays IBM for the rigth to use it.
>
Yup OLE may be partly based on a product called IBM OS/2(tm).
The current source is probably not.
MS pays since they once many yeras ago wrote a contract with
IBM to licence the technology.
How would this relate to someone using the IBM OS/2 source
to build an OS called something else ?
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Re: Part 8
#230 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 8:10 pm
Subject: Re: Re: license issues (GPL or not) mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:03:29 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:
>
>> Noone is allowed to charge money for Linux, thats what I want.
>Thats simply not true, everybody is allowed to charge money for Linux,
>read and understand the GPL.
>
For unmodified Linux sourcecode ??
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 8:10 pm
Subject: Re: Re: license issues (GPL or not) mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:03:29 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:
>
>> Noone is allowed to charge money for Linux, thats what I want.
>Thats simply not true, everybody is allowed to charge money for Linux,
>read and understand the GPL.
>
For unmodified Linux sourcecode ??
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================