After reading all this, I think it's best that we simply don't share any idea on the forum that we consider, in any degree or form, to be our exclusive property, because disclosing it with attendant legalese tends to invoke a tacit threat of Kafkaesque legal violence against every unwitting person who stumbles upon it and is now the in awkward position of having his own development efforts preempted.
The legal system would love to have us imagine that everything we think of can be patented and we can control it and get rich from it, but this is a siren song that only generates billable hours for patent lawyers.
It's also convenient to suppose that the legal system can freely afford us various protections, but the reality is that it's an abysmal machination that promises to do something, can do almost nothing, and could cost you everything you have if you try to use it. The only fruits of engaging the system are frustration, wasting of time and money, a disgust towards humanity, and a consequently shortened life. At least, that's been my personal experience with it. It's to be avoided like the plague.
Most of us here would freely acknowledge the inspiration that we get from others, but none of us would be inclined to do so, if compelled.
This forum is special because there is a vibrant spirit of creativity, excitement, and discovery. Let's be mindful of what it takes to keep it that way.
P.S. Do you know how many patents Parallax has filed? ZERO!!!
I couldn't agree more Chip, and congrats on the ZERO patents count! like you say, patents only winners are lawyers!
Also, the one reason I haven't posted PropGFX source, I have wanted to, but there have been a few wanting it to benefit themselves financially, so I have held back, which has been unfortunate, because there are a LOT of genuine people that would want it to learn from. I may still release it, but it would never be on a forum post, it would be in the Object Exchange, or on my web site, and link to it here, because I'm no lawyer, but as far as I was aware, anything posted on a forum then becomes public knowledge. I could be wrong, and I don't need to be corrected on here, I'm quite happy still believing that as any code I want to keep ownership of is private, plus this isn't the place for that discussion.
On a lighter note, it's great what group progress has been made so far with the Prop2 I look forward to getting one, although I'm tempted to wait, as just having one cog wouldn't benefit my requirements, and I can't justify spending hundreds of pounds on a board that I will only use to Prop with until we start getting the Prop2 for real, especially this close to Christmas, I'd rather spend it on my kids. so please no more fighting over who owns what! leave some code for those of us who don't have a setup yet!
In case there is any doubt I am in full agreement with you all and fully support the spirit of creativity, enthusiasm, helpfulness and openness we find here.
However, I don't see how that "group hug" get's around the logical issue of using the code in question in say GCC whose license does not allow it under copyright law.
Until someone explains some point of copyright law and GCC license, that I have missed or misunderstood, that would make this possible I have to assume it is not.
As it stands the GCC team would have to write their own version of CLUT byte code look up which may never reach the same efficiency, which would be a shame for everyone.
Heater, or anyone who is clued up on copyright law, just out of curiosity, what happens, when someone who hasn't seen the code, creates the same few lines, as would happen when optimising such a small piece of look up code. I mean I've used look up tables, and colour look up table, and jump tables, etc for 31 years, which is both 27 years professionally and 4 years before I worked in the industry.
I've even used many RISC processors over the years, and had to jiggle the code around to work around speeding it up for the pipeline sweet spot, for zero stalls, so odds are any one of us could come up with this same piece of code without ever seeing the source in question.
I have intentionally not looked at Bill's code. If I or someone else comes up with a similar piece of code on our own, then I feel we are safe to use it.
Baggers,
I am by no means clued up on copyright law. It's a huge and woolly subject.
My impression is that such a small text would not acquire any copyright protection anyway.
Assuming it did then of course others could produce the same code sequence independently. If there were ever a dispute I have no idea how you would prove your work was not a copy.
After reading all this, I think it's best that we simply don't share any idea on the forum that we consider, in any degree or form, to be our exclusive property, because disclosing it with attendant legalese tends to invoke a tacit threat of Kafkaesque legal violence against every unwitting person who stumbles upon it and is now the in awkward position of having his own development efforts preempted.
The legal system would love to have us imagine that everything we think of can be patented and we can control it and get rich from it, but this is a siren song that only generates billable hours for patent lawyers.
It's also convenient to suppose that the legal system can freely afford us various protections, but the reality is that it's an abysmal machination that promises to do something, can do almost nothing, and could cost you everything you have if you try to use it. The only fruits of engaging the system are frustration, wasting of time and money, a disgust towards humanity, and a consequently shortened life. At least, that's been my personal experience with it. It's to be avoided like the plague.
Most of us here would freely acknowledge the inspiration that we get from others, but none of us would be inclined to do so, if compelled.
This forum is special because there is a vibrant spirit of creativity, excitement, and discovery. Let's be mindful of what it takes to keep it that way.
P.S. Do you know how many patents Parallax has filed? ZERO!!!
I have made a sincere effort to stay out of this thread, but the more I read, the more upset I become and it troubles me. I have a lot of issues corcerning many of the posts, but I will only address a few.
First off, there seems to be a communist mentality going on here pertaining to the rights of an author to choose what type of license he provides.
Secondly, I believe that a few of the loudest opponents are financially compensated for their own coding efforts, and they should not even be allowed to voice their opinion for this reason.
Thirdly, there is some serious brown nosing going on here. While I am a big fan of Parallax products and the general nature of the forum, I also believe that Parallax is the largest winner of coding efforts from outside sources. I am certain that the trickle down affect of public domain source code helps put money into the corporations pocket. Since I am a fair believer in the right to free entreprise, I have no objection to this, but to jump on the band wagon, well I believe that is truly inappropiate. Even though no patents are held by Parallax, they do have trademark and copyright intellectual property that they protect. For example, the Propeller Manual prohibits commercial duplication. And if I start making Propeller beanie baseball caps and start selling them by the thousands, what do you think would happen?
Just to be clear here, if I were to use P2BEE in any of my code, I would certainly mention Bill in the acknowledgements whether or not I was required to by the license on the code. I am in favor of giving everyone credit for their ideas. What bothered me here was the mandate to do that. I guess I can get over that. What I'd really like is to get back to talking about how to make use of the new P2 features both for bytecode interpreters and LMM kernels. We were on a roll for a few days but the discussion seems to have lost steam. Can we get it going again?
Given that the propeller beanie has been around since Ray Neslon popularized it in the 1940's I suspect nothing would happen if you sold them. Perhaps, maybe, someone like these guys would go after youhttp://www.villagehatshop.com/propeller_round.html
Of course Parallax benefits from all the coding efforts you see here and elsewhere. So what? Does Intel not benefit from all the code written for it's processors which helps sell more processors? It just happens that there is a lot of for free opensource code in the Propeller environment.
As for "communist", I don't see it. What we have here is a market. I come here, see lots of spiffy software for my Propellers I can use, I snag it an use it. If I ever come up with anything slightly interesting or even useful I post it here. We all do this, we all benefit. Including Parallax.
Even those who cannot or will not return any software currency are helping. They have useful code, they buy Propellers, the Parallax and the Propeller prosper and have long lives and the means to develop further. Which we would all like to see.
...It's also convenient to suppose that the legal system can freely afford us various protections, but the reality is that it's an abysmal machination that promises to do something, can do almost nothing, and could cost you everything you have if you try to use it. The only fruits of engaging the system are frustration, wasting of time and money, a disgust towards humanity, and a consequently shortened life. At least, that's been my personal experience with it. It's to be avoided like the plague...
If you don't want people to use your code without restriction then don't post it, it's really simple when you think about it.
Sounds simple, but it's not. Actually it should be turned the other way around to put the burden on the user, since everything is copyrighted. If you do not see a license, then do not use it.
EDIT: Because the burden is already on the user, so why change it, and make it more complicated.
Sounds simple, but it's not. Actually it should be turned the other way around to put the burden on the user, since everything is copyrighted. If you do not see a license, then do not use it.
EDIT: Because the burden is already on the user, so why change it, and make it more complicated.
I agree that if you're going to use something posted here it's best to ask the author first but what is the point of posting code if no one is allowed to use it? I think Chip is right when he says we shouldn't be posting code that we consider proprietary.
potatohead, I like you, so I mean no offense, but that is not reality. There is no escaping a copyright without a license. Sure you can take a gamble on something that has no license attached, but that is exactly what it is, a gamble. I admit that 99.99% of the people in the forum freely provide code and don't care who uses it, however it is that 00.01% that you have to watch out for.
But to come to a site provided by Parallax and lay claims to code running on Parallax hardware effectively trying to lock down features unless the user goes through him for permission is B.S.
This is like me coming to your house and scrawling something on the wall and saying hey that's copyrighted anyone that comes to your house needs my permission to read it.
You said "If you do not see a license, then do not use it.", so every time someone places a code snippet on here asking for help we need to consider said code off limits, that's absurd.
Look at the effort you went through to get your patent, if Bill is so enamoured with his latest creation let him go through that trouble.
To come on a Parallax site, prefix something with Merry Xmas and present it as a gift with strings attached is silly.
Imagine if we all took that attidude and started posting such items, pretty soon nobody would bother using the prop.
It's great the Bill is very smart and talented and the propeller has benefitted from that, but to start putting non-MIT licensing on forum code to me is not acceptable.
Bill plainly stated he knows a lot of people have and are planning to build emulators using the P2, so he goes and writes some code that he thinks they will all need and locks it down under his terms.
Sort of reminds me of the old days when the king would get the bride before the groom, Bill want's his cut of every emulator built on the P2.
I agree that if you're going to use something posted here it's best to ask the author first but what is the point of posting code if no one is allowed to use it? I think Chip is right when he says we shouldn't be posting code that we consider proprietary.
Well David, it is a two sided coin. If you intend to allow other people to use your code, simply attach a license. On the other hand, even people who develop proprietary material may hit some sort of programming stumbling block and may need occassional assistance, and must provide some code to obtain some assistance. In which case, the amount of code they post should be limited and perhaps include a statement that the code is proprietary. Parallax will most likely benefit from both proprietary and open source code, and I personally think that limiting posts to open source is not necessarilly beneficial to all forum members.
You said "If you do not see a license, then do not use it.", so every time someone places a code snippet on here asking for help we need to consider said code off limits
ABSOLUTELY or ask for written permission to use it. Without a license, a snippet should NEVER be considered open source. However it is very unlikely that any forum member would sue another, but still the possibility does exist without a license.
Bill plainly stated he knows a lot of people have and are planning to build emulators using the P2, so he goes and writes some code that he thinks they will all need and locks it down under his terms.
To be perfectly honest, I am unaware of the intricacies of Bill's code, but I cannot understand how this would prevent someone from creating similar code which would not be governed by his copyrighted material. One way or the other, he has written it, and it does exist. What happens from here remains to be seen.
@Saphia, I don't think you understand. Why would I be upset about the encryption capabilities? That's a good thing as we can lock code to individual props and create binary libraries and license them to people. IMHO, that is a great development because there are a lot of uses that will be on the table now and more users is good for us, Parallax, etc... Bring it on. I'm a fan.
I don't need to see that code either. Not a worry.
@Bruce, a blanket requirement for MIT / PD code here would preserve the resource we've had to date. Here's a thought experiment for you:
Two forums:
One is just the way it is now, and or with the addition of MIT / PD license only code of conduct rules, the other is anything goes.
Which do you think would get the lions share of the participation? I don't think it's the one filled with all sorts of issues, conditions, etc...
We are all here because it's a good resource and we've all gained from that experience with a lot of great code shared openly. That's an investment everybody made and now we have people wanting to dilute that with licenses that are not compatible with MIT.
Now, why would people want to post here? Because the mindshare is here, and the mindshare is here because of how we've done things. Go and look around at other CPU forums on the net, and there isn't the quality there is here and that quality is due to the ethic of Parallax and the participants here. Dilute that ethic, and you spoil the resource.
I don't think that's OK.
Now, you've said that's "Communist" which is a load of BS. Objecting to the introduction of code that has significant license conditions attached is not communism at all, it's a perfectly valid question.
Honestly, what I see here is some of us want to profit by Propeller IP. That's a perfectly reasonable proposition, and one that I can't imagine anyone objecting to. I don't, and I expect it to happen.
However, framing that code as a "gift" when the truth is, accepting it changes the nature and the value of the forums here isn't something I feel good about. I can assure you, it absolutely changes my desire to participate, because it's being exploited that way with no real return back to us, which defeats the purpose of this forum in the first place.
That's the ONLY issue I have with any of this. Making the forum less attractive and valuable with moves like this doesn't really serve anybody but the people polluting the discussion, and if we are going to allow polluters, why bother contributing?
Fair question Bruce. And I'm asking it.
All of you think really hard about the thought experiment I just posed. Two forums. One operates as this one does now, perhaps with the MIT / PD code contribution requirement, and the other one lacks that requirement.
Where do you think the traffic will be?
Go and look on the net for MANY examples. It's not pretty at all.
And finally, again and again, and again to be really clear:
None of my commentary should be taken as as pressure for Bill to remove his license. He gets to do that. I don't think highly of it at this time, but I don't for a second want to imply that he somehow can't do what he's doing. He can. End of story.
However, we don't need it here and I submit that allowing it here dilutes the value of the forum and I believe the code should be removed and we should formalize the discussion mode now with an explicit MIT / PD requirement for forum code postings. Anybody that wants to advertize code can do so with a link to their repository of choice.
That makes it all harder to discuss and less attractive for those wanting to leverage this place for profit doesn't it? Yes! It does, and that is my point. There is a cost for closing things down and one of those costs is the inability to have open discussions about it. The license Bill chose is very open, and frankly I'm a fan of that license, just not here, because that license is incompatible with the mode of discussion that makes this place worth posting a notice in the first place.
I believe that a few of the loudest opponents are financially compensated for their own coding efforts, and they should not even be allowed to voice their opinion for this reason.
I don't think this is relevant to the discussion at all. I also think it's absurd that you think financial compensation should include a gag order by default.
You realize Bill himself was part of the propgcc dev group, right? So by extension you are saying Bill should shut up on this topic along with everyone else...
Say some code gets posted and the license is free to use for any purpose, unless the users first name begins with "B", and that licensees must issue their derivatives with the same license terms.
See how that works? Now I do not mean that as some personal attack. I like you too. What I am doing is personifying the issue so that it can be seen with greater clarity.
Say that same code and license is hosted on opengeek.org, and that I drop a link here inviting people to take a look. See the difference?
Get a cached byte from hub memory, translate it to a long via the stack RAM, and execute it. How simple, but effective!
Good job!
I wrote this post before I actually looked at Bill's code. After posting, I worried that maybe I hadn't really understood what he was talking about. So, I went and looked at his code to verify that I had gotten it right. I had. It is essentially a very clever 3-fixed-instruction-plus-1-variable-instuction sequence which can be coded in many different ways. It is an idea. I suppose it could be argued that this idea is patentable, but it cannot be argued that to implement this idea is violating a copyright.
I believe what Bill desired is simply recognition for being the first to come up with this idea, which most forum members would gladly grant him, without solicitation. The problem is that by desiring to compel people to acknowledge his contribution, he is inclined to pick from among several blunt tools that the legal system proffers, all of which have the surprise effect of pointing a gun at everyone else - in what had been an unassuming and friendly environment. I really doubt Bill registered such ramifications when he presented his code, but I can't imagine that this dynamic now escapes his awareness.
Bill,
At this point, after having been roundly criticized by many, you may be feeling rather indignant and inclined to dig your heels in by remaining silent, letting the rest us of steep in the ambiguity of possible latent legal trouble if we code up 3 certain instructions, which you were the first to put together, and for which we are all thankful.
In order that we all might continue to enjoy sharing on the forums, could you please assure everyone that they needn't worry about being sued by you, under any pretext, if they implement, in some fashion, the idea that you presented to us?
You will have the 256 instructions in the first 256 longs in cog ram followed by the rlmm loop.
This has the adantage that you don't need to copy them first into the CLUT.
(rlmm = reduced instruction set LMM).
This code will also do the same but with the table read made like on the Prop1:
rlmm reps #16383,#8
nop
rdbytec tmp,pc
movs :ind,tmp
add pc,#4
nop '<- not sure if neccessary
:ind mov ins,0-0
nop
nop
ins nop
jmp #rlmm
!! BUT BOTH VERSIONS ARE AS USELESS FOR CPU EMULATION OR CMM AS BILL's VERSION IS !!
You can not emulate an 8 bit CPU by just picking a subset of 256 Propeller instructions and map
them to the 8bit-CPU opcodes. The Prop2 will not have equivalent instructions and addressing modes.
Further: 8bit CPUs need often more than 1 byte for an instruction. Somewhere you need to specify the
immediate value or jump address for example.
All the existing CPU Emulators on Prop1 uses lookup tables, but normally the table contains much
more than just Prop instructions, you also need the byte-count and some info on how to set the flags and so on.
So don't be affraid by Bill's copyright, his loop will never be used for PropGCC or an Emulator in the presented form!
The following code uses words instead of bytes together with the CLUT, so it's definitly different from Bill's BYTEcode Execution Engine.
But it is much more useful and you can build a very simple, PIC like 8bit CPU with it:
wlmm reps #16383,#6
nop
rdwordc val,ptra++
setspa val
popar ins
shr val,#8
setinda val
ins nop
jmp #wlmm
15 8 7 0
intruction words in hubram: [ value | opcode ]
example instructions in CLUT (Code Look Up Table):
mov r0,val '= load immediate value
mov r1,inda '= load cog register
mov inda,r0 '= store to cog register
setptra inda '= indirect jump
subptra val '= relative jump
Comments
I couldn't agree more Chip, and congrats on the ZERO patents count!
Also, the one reason I haven't posted PropGFX source, I have wanted to, but there have been a few wanting it to benefit themselves financially, so I have held back, which has been unfortunate, because there are a LOT of genuine people that would want it to learn from. I may still release it, but it would never be on a forum post, it would be in the Object Exchange, or on my web site, and link to it here, because I'm no lawyer, but as far as I was aware, anything posted on a forum then becomes public knowledge. I could be wrong, and I don't need to be corrected on here, I'm quite happy still believing that as any code I want to keep ownership of is private, plus this isn't the place for that discussion.
On a lighter note, it's great what group progress has been made so far with the Prop2 I look forward to getting one, although I'm tempted to wait, as just having one cog wouldn't benefit my requirements, and I can't justify spending hundreds of pounds on a board that I will only use to Prop with until we start getting the Prop2 for real, especially this close to Christmas, I'd rather spend it on my kids.
In case there is any doubt I am in full agreement with you all and fully support the spirit of creativity, enthusiasm, helpfulness and openness we find here.
However, I don't see how that "group hug" get's around the logical issue of using the code in question in say GCC whose license does not allow it under copyright law.
Until someone explains some point of copyright law and GCC license, that I have missed or misunderstood, that would make this possible I have to assume it is not.
As it stands the GCC team would have to write their own version of CLUT byte code look up which may never reach the same efficiency, which would be a shame for everyone.
I've even used many RISC processors over the years, and had to jiggle the code around to work around speeding it up for the pipeline sweet spot, for zero stalls, so odds are any one of us could come up with this same piece of code without ever seeing the source in question.
I am by no means clued up on copyright law. It's a huge and woolly subject.
My impression is that such a small text would not acquire any copyright protection anyway.
Assuming it did then of course others could produce the same code sequence independently. If there were ever a dispute I have no idea how you would prove your work was not a copy.
I have made a sincere effort to stay out of this thread, but the more I read, the more upset I become and it troubles me. I have a lot of issues corcerning many of the posts, but I will only address a few.
Given that the propeller beanie has been around since Ray Neslon popularized it in the 1940's I suspect nothing would happen if you sold them. Perhaps, maybe, someone like these guys would go after youhttp://www.villagehatshop.com/propeller_round.html
Of course Parallax benefits from all the coding efforts you see here and elsewhere. So what? Does Intel not benefit from all the code written for it's processors which helps sell more processors? It just happens that there is a lot of for free opensource code in the Propeller environment.
As for "communist", I don't see it. What we have here is a market. I come here, see lots of spiffy software for my Propellers I can use, I snag it an use it. If I ever come up with anything slightly interesting or even useful I post it here. We all do this, we all benefit. Including Parallax.
Even those who cannot or will not return any software currency are helping. They have useful code, they buy Propellers, the Parallax and the Propeller prosper and have long lives and the means to develop further. Which we would all like to see.
That's the best thing I have read on this entire thread!
If you don't want people to use your code without restriction then don't post it, it's really simple when you think about it.
This forum and it's users are the best there is in my opinion, it's a real shame to see it soured in such a way!
Coley
Truer words have rarely been uttered.
Sounds simple, but it's not. Actually it should be turned the other way around to put the burden on the user, since everything is copyrighted. If you do not see a license, then do not use it.
EDIT: Because the burden is already on the user, so why change it, and make it more complicated.
It hurts me but I need say You that --- You will see many changes in time real P2 arive.
Why You think some of advocates that scream now --- Advocated for PROTECTIONS bits in P2?
If Bill wants to put this on his own site, fine.
But to come to a site provided by Parallax and lay claims to code running on Parallax hardware effectively trying to lock down features unless the user goes through him for permission is B.S.
This is like me coming to your house and scrawling something on the wall and saying hey that's copyrighted anyone that comes to your house needs my permission to read it.
You said "If you do not see a license, then do not use it.", so every time someone places a code snippet on here asking for help we need to consider said code off limits, that's absurd.
Look at the effort you went through to get your patent, if Bill is so enamoured with his latest creation let him go through that trouble.
To come on a Parallax site, prefix something with Merry Xmas and present it as a gift with strings attached is silly.
Imagine if we all took that attidude and started posting such items, pretty soon nobody would bother using the prop.
It's great the Bill is very smart and talented and the propeller has benefitted from that, but to start putting non-MIT licensing on forum code to me is not acceptable.
Bill plainly stated he knows a lot of people have and are planning to build emulators using the P2, so he goes and writes some code that he thinks they will all need and locks it down under his terms.
Sort of reminds me of the old days when the king would get the bride before the groom, Bill want's his cut of every emulator built on the P2.
C.W.
Well David, it is a two sided coin. If you intend to allow other people to use your code, simply attach a license. On the other hand, even people who develop proprietary material may hit some sort of programming stumbling block and may need occassional assistance, and must provide some code to obtain some assistance. In which case, the amount of code they post should be limited and perhaps include a statement that the code is proprietary. Parallax will most likely benefit from both proprietary and open source code, and I personally think that limiting posts to open source is not necessarilly beneficial to all forum members.
ABSOLUTELY or ask for written permission to use it. Without a license, a snippet should NEVER be considered open source. However it is very unlikely that any forum member would sue another, but still the possibility does exist without a license.
To be perfectly honest, I am unaware of the intricacies of Bill's code, but I cannot understand how this would prevent someone from creating similar code which would not be governed by his copyrighted material. One way or the other, he has written it, and it does exist. What happens from here remains to be seen.
@Saphia, I don't think you understand. Why would I be upset about the encryption capabilities? That's a good thing as we can lock code to individual props and create binary libraries and license them to people. IMHO, that is a great development because there are a lot of uses that will be on the table now and more users is good for us, Parallax, etc... Bring it on. I'm a fan.
I don't need to see that code either. Not a worry.
@Bruce, a blanket requirement for MIT / PD code here would preserve the resource we've had to date. Here's a thought experiment for you:
Two forums:
One is just the way it is now, and or with the addition of MIT / PD license only code of conduct rules, the other is anything goes.
Which do you think would get the lions share of the participation? I don't think it's the one filled with all sorts of issues, conditions, etc...
We are all here because it's a good resource and we've all gained from that experience with a lot of great code shared openly. That's an investment everybody made and now we have people wanting to dilute that with licenses that are not compatible with MIT.
Now, why would people want to post here? Because the mindshare is here, and the mindshare is here because of how we've done things. Go and look around at other CPU forums on the net, and there isn't the quality there is here and that quality is due to the ethic of Parallax and the participants here. Dilute that ethic, and you spoil the resource.
I don't think that's OK.
Now, you've said that's "Communist" which is a load of BS. Objecting to the introduction of code that has significant license conditions attached is not communism at all, it's a perfectly valid question.
Honestly, what I see here is some of us want to profit by Propeller IP. That's a perfectly reasonable proposition, and one that I can't imagine anyone objecting to. I don't, and I expect it to happen.
However, framing that code as a "gift" when the truth is, accepting it changes the nature and the value of the forums here isn't something I feel good about. I can assure you, it absolutely changes my desire to participate, because it's being exploited that way with no real return back to us, which defeats the purpose of this forum in the first place.
That's the ONLY issue I have with any of this. Making the forum less attractive and valuable with moves like this doesn't really serve anybody but the people polluting the discussion, and if we are going to allow polluters, why bother contributing?
Fair question Bruce. And I'm asking it.
All of you think really hard about the thought experiment I just posed. Two forums. One operates as this one does now, perhaps with the MIT / PD code contribution requirement, and the other one lacks that requirement.
Where do you think the traffic will be?
Go and look on the net for MANY examples. It's not pretty at all.
And finally, again and again, and again to be really clear:
None of my commentary should be taken as as pressure for Bill to remove his license. He gets to do that. I don't think highly of it at this time, but I don't for a second want to imply that he somehow can't do what he's doing. He can. End of story.
However, we don't need it here and I submit that allowing it here dilutes the value of the forum and I believe the code should be removed and we should formalize the discussion mode now with an explicit MIT / PD requirement for forum code postings. Anybody that wants to advertize code can do so with a link to their repository of choice.
That makes it all harder to discuss and less attractive for those wanting to leverage this place for profit doesn't it? Yes! It does, and that is my point. There is a cost for closing things down and one of those costs is the inability to have open discussions about it. The license Bill chose is very open, and frankly I'm a fan of that license, just not here, because that license is incompatible with the mode of discussion that makes this place worth posting a notice in the first place.
Or not.
1. Modify the terms of use policy of this forum to include only permitting MIT / PD code be posted here.
2. Trigger the terms of use for all users so that they see and agree on next logon
3. Ask that code not MIT / PD either be posted only in binary form, as in "free beer" or be removed from the forum to be hosed elsewhere.
I don't think this is relevant to the discussion at all. I also think it's absurd that you think financial compensation should include a gag order by default.
You realize Bill himself was part of the propgcc dev group, right? So by extension you are saying Bill should shut up on this topic along with everyone else...
I would argue the point, but I just surrendered to pressure
Say some code gets posted and the license is free to use for any purpose, unless the users first name begins with "B", and that licensees must issue their derivatives with the same license terms.
See how that works? Now I do not mean that as some personal attack. I like you too. What I am doing is personifying the issue so that it can be seen with greater clarity.
Say that same code and license is hosted on opengeek.org, and that I drop a link here inviting people to take a look. See the difference?
I wrote this post before I actually looked at Bill's code. After posting, I worried that maybe I hadn't really understood what he was talking about. So, I went and looked at his code to verify that I had gotten it right. I had. It is essentially a very clever 3-fixed-instruction-plus-1-variable-instuction sequence which can be coded in many different ways. It is an idea. I suppose it could be argued that this idea is patentable, but it cannot be argued that to implement this idea is violating a copyright.
I believe what Bill desired is simply recognition for being the first to come up with this idea, which most forum members would gladly grant him, without solicitation. The problem is that by desiring to compel people to acknowledge his contribution, he is inclined to pick from among several blunt tools that the legal system proffers, all of which have the surprise effect of pointing a gun at everyone else - in what had been an unassuming and friendly environment. I really doubt Bill registered such ramifications when he presented his code, but I can't imagine that this dynamic now escapes his awareness.
Bill,
At this point, after having been roundly criticized by many, you may be feeling rather indignant and inclined to dig your heels in by remaining silent, letting the rest us of steep in the ambiguity of possible latent legal trouble if we code up 3 certain instructions, which you were the first to put together, and for which we are all thankful.
In order that we all might continue to enjoy sharing on the forums, could you please assure everyone that they needn't worry about being sued by you, under any pretext, if they implement, in some fashion, the idea that you presented to us?
This code does the same, but uses the cog-ram for the lookup table:
rlmm reps #16383,#6 nop rdbytec tmp,pc setinda tmp mov ins,inda add pc,#4 nop ins nop jmp #rlmmYou will have the 256 instructions in the first 256 longs in cog ram followed by the rlmm loop.This has the adantage that you don't need to copy them first into the CLUT.
(rlmm = reduced instruction set LMM).
This code will also do the same but with the table read made like on the Prop1:
rlmm reps #16383,#8 nop rdbytec tmp,pc movs :ind,tmp add pc,#4 nop '<- not sure if neccessary :ind mov ins,0-0 nop nop ins nop jmp #rlmm!! BUT BOTH VERSIONS ARE AS USELESS FOR CPU EMULATION OR CMM AS BILL's VERSION IS !!
You can not emulate an 8 bit CPU by just picking a subset of 256 Propeller instructions and map
them to the 8bit-CPU opcodes. The Prop2 will not have equivalent instructions and addressing modes.
Further: 8bit CPUs need often more than 1 byte for an instruction. Somewhere you need to specify the
immediate value or jump address for example.
All the existing CPU Emulators on Prop1 uses lookup tables, but normally the table contains much
more than just Prop instructions, you also need the byte-count and some info on how to set the flags and so on.
So don't be affraid by Bill's copyright, his loop will never be used for PropGCC or an Emulator in the presented form!
The following code uses words instead of bytes together with the CLUT, so it's definitly different from Bill's BYTEcode Execution Engine.
But it is much more useful and you can build a very simple, PIC like 8bit CPU with it:
wlmm reps #16383,#6 nop rdwordc val,ptra++ setspa val popar ins shr val,#8 setinda val ins nop jmp #wlmm 15 8 7 0 intruction words in hubram: [ value | opcode ] example instructions in CLUT (Code Look Up Table): mov r0,val '= load immediate value mov r1,inda '= load cog register mov inda,r0 '= store to cog register setptra inda '= indirect jump subptra val '= relative jumpAndy