Guys, there's a thread more generally devoted to the MIT licensing issue. You know where it is. Perhaps it would be better to continue that part of the discussion there and let this thread return to the specifics of the OP's submission.
Here's the deal. You agreed to a code of conduct as a condition of being granted access to participate in this forum. The forum owners are completely free to require whatever conduct they deem necessary to participate here, and they are completely free to employ any remedy they see fit.
This is true, but their terms of use may not necessarily coincide with what is actually legal. Contracts, copyrights, and laws... It is a very wide scope.............
Hold firm Bill, you are right in what you are doing, and how you are doing it. Their will not be any negative affect from this, and the P2 will survive in spite of what a few forum members are saying.
Hey Bill, I just got around to reading this thread. Nice work!
Re licensing, not something I'm particularly fired up about, but I always think it is polite to acknowledge the author of something clever so I'll have no problem acknowledging you as the clever boffin who invented this. Xmodem had this back in the 1970s - if you added some code, you added it to the comments section. But left all the previous comments and acknowledgements there too.
Regarding the code though - very interesting comment on your first post
Once I saw the specifications and instructions for the STACK memory, I started
thinking of non-obvious uses for it... and once Chip increased it to 256 longs
from the original 128 entr "CLUT" version, it became even more interesting.
256 longs... a very useful number. There are 256 possible values for a byte.
I see you mentioned the Z80. Well most Z80 code (CP/M, Wordstar etc) is actually 8080 code and the 8080 is interesting to me because there are ... 256 opcodes.
So that might tie in even better than the other emulators?
Why do Americans have this gut reaction to label anything they are arguing against as "communist" in a derogatory way?
You guys know exactly what I am talking about. Might as well ship Bill off to Siberia for creating a body of work and attaching a license that the rest of the party don't agree with.
I should note that Chip and I have known Bill Henning for many years and we both believe that he had no bad intent in attaching a license to his CLUT code example. Bill has worked for Parallax on important projects including the GCC compiler and he has significant academic and professional code experience, not to mention he's a kind-hearted and considerate character. Bottom line: he's an important contributor around here and we want him to quickly return to regular discussion on our forums!
He also didn't violate any rules by making his post. We didn't have any rules in place at the time covering his license attachment.
Comments
Thanks,
-Phil
This is true, but their terms of use may not necessarily coincide with what is actually legal. Contracts, copyrights, and laws... It is a very wide scope.............
This post intentionally left blank.
Ray
Re licensing, not something I'm particularly fired up about, but I always think it is polite to acknowledge the author of something clever so I'll have no problem acknowledging you as the clever boffin who invented this. Xmodem had this back in the 1970s - if you added some code, you added it to the comments section. But left all the previous comments and acknowledgements there too.
Regarding the code though - very interesting comment on your first post
I see you mentioned the Z80. Well most Z80 code (CP/M, Wordstar etc) is actually 8080 code and the 8080 is interesting to me because there are ... 256 opcodes.
So that might tie in even better than the other emulators?
Keep up the good work!
I hereby disassociate myself from any gut reaction idbruce has had, is having, or may ever have.
You guys know exactly what I am talking about. Might as well ship Bill off to Siberia for creating a body of work and attaching a license that the rest of the party don't agree with.
Shame on all of you.
My comment has been retracted..
http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php?144724-Code-licensing-requirements-please-read-our-new-rules! provides an update about how we should operate. The Forum Guidelines will be updated as well.
I should note that Chip and I have known Bill Henning for many years and we both believe that he had no bad intent in attaching a license to his CLUT code example. Bill has worked for Parallax on important projects including the GCC compiler and he has significant academic and professional code experience, not to mention he's a kind-hearted and considerate character. Bottom line: he's an important contributor around here and we want him to quickly return to regular discussion on our forums!
He also didn't violate any rules by making his post. We didn't have any rules in place at the time covering his license attachment.
Thanks,
Ken Gracey