Frankly, requiring MIT is already hampering the growth of Obex, and will continue to deter professional developers from contributing objects.
I doubt that that's true. But even if it were, it's still in Parallax's best interests to require a non-restirctive license for OBEX contributions, since it prevents potential customers from being encumbered -- and put off -- by onerous requirements.
Given that I am assured by some forum members that my software innovations are simple and obvious, and that they - or someone else - would have independently come up with the same innovations without my contribution, I see little reason to post about any future software innovation I may come up with in this forum.
I don't think anyone used the word "simple"; but, given the necessity of a certain function, I would have to stick with "obvious" to those with the facility to answer such a need when that need is perceived. But that's beside the point. The fact is that you did perceive the need and took the actual trouble to address it, and that has to count. But simply publishing it here should be enough to establish "prior art" without adding additional restrictive covenants. At least that's the way the rest of us do things around here. And it seems to work out just fine.
That even translate back to all MIT license Advocate.
yep....we may have just seen a turning of the page....I hope not....but some already know that forcing conformity among a voluntary comaradarie can lead to many unintended consequences; not to mention dispirited departures of enthusiasm.
Here's my pennies worth on this subject. If you don't want someone slightly modifying your code because you are afraid they will profit from it then DON'T post it. If you are trying to help someone out and modify their code, don't expect royalties. If you do then I feel you do not belong on public forums in the first place. If you have code that could be used to profit from then instead of posting the actual code, start a thread letting people know what it does and either have them sign an NDA and then send them the code or create your own web site that people can sign up for and list the license option in your user agreement. Honestly I thought this was suppose to be a "Support" forum so if you do not want to help people then just go elsewhere. There are several users that would be very wealthy if they wanted royalties for all the code they have helped others with.
Well, Smile! None of this is headed to a good place.
I want to address "Zealot" with respect to my opinion that forum code should be MIT / PD code. With very few exceptions, that is basically what we've been doing for a very long time now. Formalizing that with the intent of preserving an open support forum would be entirely legal. The reason we've been doing it that way is so that robust discussion and code reuse can occur in an educational / problem solving context that everybody benefits from. That is the ONLY reason I would advocate such a thing.
Currently, we have a lot of MIT code, unlicensed code, and GPL projects all working together here to our mutual benefit. Some commercial for profit efforts have spun off of that, and that is not only acceptable, but encouraged! That's the norm right now, and it's highly valuable. What value? The community here is the value. We all visit, we all spend money, we all build stuff, we all post up code for discussion, and we all benefit.
The license assigned to Bill's package doesn't allow all of that to happen as it has been, and as a community we've got an interest in understanding what that means, thus the licensing discussion and my personal call for Bill to reconsider not discussing these things openly as we have so many other things in the past, including the MIT licensing used to date. What is different now as opposed to then?
In a nut shell, somebody asks a question here for a commercial product they are developing and they get pointed to a thread, or a code snippet ends up in the thread, and that code isn't MIT/ PD, or worse somebody combines them to provide a solution with the best of intentions.
What happens from there?
Suddenly, that answer comes with conditions where it didn't before... The more mixed licenses there are, the more discussions there are, the more conditions there are, and pretty soon it gets kind of difficult to understand what makes sense. Again, as a community, that's worth discussion because that is a significant change.
That is the ONLY reason I have for advocating we keep our MIT / PD norms intact. Again, that's forum code, not all code associated with Propeller chips, and I do not believe that is zealotry at all. ...and no I'm not taking that personally at all, as my intentions are to preserve value and the ability to add value here, that's it.
On a personal note, I am dismayed over the fact that this kind of squabble impacted us before we even saw P2 chips for real. Sheesh. I'm working on a nice "Using the Monitor" document, and am going back to that now, but this whole thing did make me think some. Has something changed with P2 that we don't even have yet? Should I not just contribute it here as I did my last works of that type?
Edit: Just saw Phil's post. I hope that all holds true.
I would argue that the main problem with the Obex is the obex site itself being really quite awful. It's also been left pretty much unchanged (or maintained) for a long long time. I don't mean the content of the site, because there is a great wealth of content in there, but it's painful to access or find. It's more difficult than it should be for people to manage their contributions or even to add new contributions. There are HUGE gaping holes of missing features.
As for the licensing issue, I have been thinking about it all day, and it still annoys me that at this phase in the game for Prop2 you felt the need to assert protection over some code for it. It's NOT even a final chip. What's in the FPGA has no guarantee of even making it into the final silicon. What good is your asserted protection of code if the CLUT functionality has to change before things are final? You could at least wait until there are engineering samples that prove out the bulk of the features working. On top of that, it's not even that novel of an idea. (of course, I am against the idea that any software can be claimed to be novel enough to warrant protections). We are all digging into the Prop2 and figuring out what it can do and coming up with new ways to do things. Thinking that any one of us is not capable of thinking up the idea or coding up the feature is simply arrogant. However, the thing that was most annoying to me is how you dressed up this code with your assertion of code protection as a xmas present to us? Sorry, but from my perspective it's more like a xmas present to yourself.
Anyway, free and open discussion and sharing has always been what this community is about. We also attribute things to people willingly. That's part of the reason I stuck around and started contributing. Having people come in and try to stake claims, just hinders things. If people start slapping licenses worse than MIT on everything they post, than I'm just going to walk away.
Full disclosure here, I am STRONGLY opposed to software patents, and I am STRONGLY opposed to GPL/LGPL or any license that is more restrictive than MIT. I choose to use MIT simply because I want to be free of liability if someone uses my code and then tries to blame me for problems. If we lived in a less sue happy world, then I would forgo any licensing at all.
I wanted to make sure it was clear that my last post was in reply to Bill's bit reply. I had not read any of the rest of the thread, and I see now (after doing so) that I repeated a lot of things other said. Sorry about that.
As for the absurd idea of enforcing a license on postings in the forums here. All I can say is, what are you guys thinking? Seriously? This is just about the worst idea ever. I know Parallax and Ken/Chip well enough to know they they will have nothing of it. If you want your posting of code to be licensed somehow, then you attach the license.
I still don't understand why it is so disturbing what type of License TEXT he used --- He don't said anyone need PAY for it -- Only recognise his work.
You have said that a few times now and I will reply again that that is not the issue. Personally I have no qualms with attribution. The issue is "is code
with such a license usable in projects covered by another license, like GCC for example?"
Phil
One thing that's been left out of this discussion is the difference between an invention and a discovery.
That's because we are not discussing patents here. Copyright law does not care if you invented or discovered anything.
Well this thread certainly took a turn from the general question of the title. Many of the items discussed here were also discussed in Bill's thread.
Most of what localroger said is true, but he overlooked one major factor. Code does not have to be used by thousands and thousands of people to become very valuable. A simple piece of source code used my one machine could be worth millions of dollars. For instance, let's say there is a manufacturer in Houston Texas making rubber baby buggy bumpers and the machine that produces these bumpers outputs 30,000 units per day. However with the use of a unique algorithim posted within the Parallax forums, this manufacturer can increase yearly production by 50%. Now let's assume, this manufacturer is using this source code in an unaltered state, with no license attached. Should this manufacturer pay the original creator a fair sum of money? I think he should. Would this manufacturer be liable for damages if sued for infringement? I think he would, providing the work is registered and has a proper notice.
I personally have not evaluated Bill's source code because it is above my pay grade, but there are several issues here from what I have read.
Bill is a contributor and I think he should continue to contribute.
Even though I will probably not use his code, I still think of it as a gift, because he did in fact include a license. If he did not include a license, then it could not be considered a gift, because without a license, the code is useless for others.
Of course the issue of advance knowledge provides some unanswered questions, but is Bill really to blame for having such advance knowledge? I don't think so. Parallax chose to provide him with the advance knowledge for some reason or another. And considering this choice, I don't believe it is fair for everyone to come down so hard on Bill. If his work is of significant value, then someone (perhaps Parallax) should just buy his source code and attach whatever license they like to it.
It was previously mentioned, that if you don't like the original license, a request can be made to the author for a special license. I agree.
Bottom line_______________________
If you don't like Bill's license or code, then don't use it and create your own, then there will be no issue of licensing. As mentioned, copyright does not apply to processes or methods, so even if you stumble upon the same conclusions as Bill, as long as you do not copy his source code, there is nothing he can do about it, providing he does not apply for a patent.
If I post anything it is always what I'm are thinking --- Not as others bit/melody.
And that talk I take as much discrediting (You are non better in any way people as me).
I wanted to make sure it was clear that my last post was in reply to Bill's bit reply. I had not read any of the rest of the thread, and I see now (after doing so) that I repeated a lot of things other said. Sorry about that.
As for the absurd idea of enforcing a license on postings in the forums here. All I can say is, what are you guys thinking? Seriously? This is just about the worst idea ever. I know Parallax and Ken/Chip well enough to know they they will have nothing of it. If you want your posting of code to be licensed somehow, then you attach the license.
..the reason for the disstress of some forum members is that I used an open source license that was not to their liking
For the record it's not that I don't like it. I'm just pointing out the problems with it for projects like GCC. Those issues are not of my making or the making of the propgcc team. If you are happy to disallow your kernel code from being used in GCC then we respect your wishes and this conversation is over for me.
I am assured by some forum members that my software innovations are simple and obvious,
I would not dare to say that your innovations are simple and obvious. I did say that the use of CLUT as a dispatch table was obvious. So much so that even I thought of it:) I also said that it's quite likely that I would never get the thing up to full efficiency.
Anyway I often feel that the best of inventions are obvious after someone has shown you it. Your original LMM was such an invention, small,
simple, obvious. Except nobody had thought of it before. Half the genius of a good invention is seeing the need and the possibility where no one else does.
I want to address "Zealot" with respect to my opinion that forum code should be MIT / PD code. With very few exceptions, that is basically what we've been doing for a very long time now. ...
Nope, with very few exceptions, nearly all posts are copyrighted.
Currently, we have a lot of MIT code, unlicensed code, and GPL projects all working together here to our mutual benefit.
Your so-called unlicensed code is actually all copyrighted.
Some commercial for profit efforts have spun off of that, and that is not only acceptable, but encouraged! That's the norm right now, and it's highly valuable. What value? The community here is the value. We all visit, we all spend money, we all build stuff, we all post up code for discussion, and we all benefit.
Yep, but how much has been contributed by commercial interests? The OBEX is devoid of commercial contributions.
The license assigned to Bill's package doesn't allow all of that to happen as it has been, ...
Let me see if I can find this evil evil evil evil license ... nope, is it posted in the forums or in sources only?
That does not seem right. The link you posted above is to a page that says "You may not use this work for commercial purposes." Which is contrary to Bills statements.
Also I'm confused because this page about the same licence does not include any commercial restrictions. Or I have not found them yet.
One tiny bit of additional information regarding your item #3:
For my experiments, I used the FPGA configuration that was publicly posted in the Propeller forum, and documentation posted to that forum or publicly available from the Parallax Semiconductor site.
I did not have any extra private information - excepting what might have occurred to me, or that the results of my experiments on equipment I owned before programming it with the publicly available FPGA image.
Well this thread certainly took a turn from the general question of the title. Many of the items discussed here were also discussed in Bill's thread.
Most of what localroger said is true, but he overlooked one major factor. Code does not have to be used by thousands and thousands of people to become very valuable. A simple piece of source code used my one machine could be worth millions of dollars. For instance, let's say there is a manufacturer in Houston Texas making rubber baby buggy bumpers and the machine that produces these bumpers outputs 30,000 units per day. However with the use of a unique algorithim posted within the Parallax forums, this manufacturer can increase yearly production by 50%. Now let's assume, this manufacturer is using this source code in an unaltered state, with no license attached. Should this manufacturer pay the original creator a fair sum of money? I think he should. Would this manufacturer be liable for damages if sued for infringement? I think he would, providing the work is registered and has a proper notice.
I personally have not evaluated Bill's source code because it is above my pay grade, but there are several issues here from what I have read.
Bill is a contributor and I think he should continue to contribute.
Even though I will probably not use his code, I still think of it as a gift, because he did in fact include a license. If he did not include a license, then it could not be considered a gift, because without a license, the code is useless for others.
Of course the issue of advance knowledge provides some unanswered questions, but is Bill really to blame for having such advance knowledge? I don't think so. Parallax chose to provide him with the advance knowledge for some reason or another. And considering this choice, I don't believe it is fair for everyone to come down so hard on Bill. If his work is of significant value, then someone (perhaps Parallax) should just buy his source code and attach whatever license they like to it.
It was previously mentioned, that if you don't like the original license, a request can be made to the author for a special license. I agree.
Bottom line_______________________
If you don't like Bill's license or code, then don't use it and create your own, then there will be no issue of licensing. As mentioned, copyright does not apply to processes or methods, so even if you stumble upon the same conclusions as Bill, as long as you do not copy his source code, there is nothing he can do about it, providing he does not apply for a patent.
Both You and I know that BASE license can have clauses that can differ from original.
It is always up to writer -- write in that clauses what are possible else impossible.
I think as most of them have not read that base license before them starting complain and attack Bill and in some cases even me.
Me only I think for as My integrity are not to sale -- And I always say what I think regardless PRICE I know I then pay for that.
I have big respect for You --- So lets it stay that
Regards
That does not seem right. The link you posted above is to a page that says "You may not use this work for commercial purposes." Which is contrary to Bills statements.
Also I'm confused because this page about the same licence does not include any commercial restrictions. Or I have not found them yet.
No need to thank me, I am just calling it the way I see it. However, depending upon your goals, I might consider altering the license, just to keep the peace, but then again, I also feel you are being bullied into that position, which just isn't right. As the creator of your own code, you should be able to attach whatever license you want. They just want it without restriction. Your call.
If someone want his code to be used in gpl or commercial programs, use lgpl.
Don't spoil this place and P2 with licensing war. Now, this is not a single license for single piece of good code. It can be problem of spoiling this community. Don't do it, or you will end like other mirocontrollers, with all bunch of incompatible licenses and licensing problems. "I cannot use this with that, prohibited"
If I created a useless piece of code that I was very proud of and attached the very same license that Bill used, I doubt that any complaint would be lodged. It would most likely just be accepted because no one cared to use my code. However in Bill's case, I assume his code is useful, and everyone wants him to put it up for grabs, so they complain
Anyone who objects to using Bill's license can just write the code themselves and put whatever license they want on their own code. This is assuming you haven't looked at Bill's code. Bill has no rights to code you develop yourself. He has no rights to the idea of using the CLUT to lookup instructions, since it is an obvious use of the instructions created by Chip. Obvious ideas are not patentable.
I think I've found the compatibility issue - "The 3.0 version of the ShareAlike licenses had an added a compatibility clause, allowing Creative Commons to declare a license compatible with one of their ShareAlike licences, allowing it to be used instead of exactly the same license for derivatives." - Which is a step up from version 2 which required exclusively CC licenses.
This is assuming you haven't looked at Bill's code.
That's not so easy. Having a peek is just natural. As Heater has said, it's obvious once you know. But it can be frustratingly difficult to implement when you have only the idea.
Sharing the code is very much an objective here. And making it GPL compatible is kind of important if I'm not mistaken.
Anyone who objects to using Bill's license can just write the code themselves and put whatever license they want on their own code. This is assuming you haven't looked at Bill's code. Bill has no rights to code you develop yourself. He has no rights to the idea of using the CLUT to lookup instructions, since it is an obvious use of the instructions created by Chip. Obvious ideas are not patentable.
When Intel launched their 860 processor I attended a presentation on it by Intel in London. Now, that 860 was blazingly fast for the time with a peak of 66MFlops if I remember correctly. In the presentation the guy showed how to write an FFT butterfly calculation in 860 assembler. First the normal way with integer ops managing the loop and floating point ops for the actual calculations. Then optimizing using the fact that the 860 could perform float and integer ops in parallel. Then optimizing using the fact that the 860 had a pipeline which the programmer had to manage.
With each optimization the performance went up but it maxed out at about 60MFlops, a bit short of the theoretical maximum. At that point the Intel guy explained that they knew how to make the final tweak to the code to get to 66MFlops but that he could not tell us because some other company had come up with it and had rights on it.
So, even Intel did not know how to program their own chip when they built it!
Not sure how this story is relevant here but that few line code snippet for an 860 FFT was preciously guarded at the time and of quite some value to Intel. It also has a parallel in the way that Bill Henning came up with the LMM technique for running big assembler programs on the Propeller which was unknown to Parallax.
That's the problem, there is no simple solution. In my opinion, any person involved with programming should be well aware of basic copyright laws. The only real solution would be to require that a license be attached to every piece of code submitted in the forum and I personally think that is absurd.
Comments
I don't think anyone used the word "simple"; but, given the necessity of a certain function, I would have to stick with "obvious" to those with the facility to answer such a need when that need is perceived. But that's beside the point. The fact is that you did perceive the need and took the actual trouble to address it, and that has to count. But simply publishing it here should be enough to establish "prior art" without adding additional restrictive covenants. At least that's the way the rest of us do things around here. And it seems to work out just fine.
-Phil
wow....do we witness here the chilling effects of zealotry?
That even translate back to all MIT license Advocate.
yep....we may have just seen a turning of the page....I hope not....but some already know that forcing conformity among a voluntary comaradarie can lead to many unintended consequences; not to mention dispirited departures of enthusiasm.
Every solid forward move that the Propeller has made has had a groups of people who were willing to share ideas to make things happen.
Jeff
It subsided the first time, and it will subside again.
-Phil
I want to address "Zealot" with respect to my opinion that forum code should be MIT / PD code. With very few exceptions, that is basically what we've been doing for a very long time now. Formalizing that with the intent of preserving an open support forum would be entirely legal. The reason we've been doing it that way is so that robust discussion and code reuse can occur in an educational / problem solving context that everybody benefits from. That is the ONLY reason I would advocate such a thing.
Currently, we have a lot of MIT code, unlicensed code, and GPL projects all working together here to our mutual benefit. Some commercial for profit efforts have spun off of that, and that is not only acceptable, but encouraged! That's the norm right now, and it's highly valuable. What value? The community here is the value. We all visit, we all spend money, we all build stuff, we all post up code for discussion, and we all benefit.
The license assigned to Bill's package doesn't allow all of that to happen as it has been, and as a community we've got an interest in understanding what that means, thus the licensing discussion and my personal call for Bill to reconsider not discussing these things openly as we have so many other things in the past, including the MIT licensing used to date. What is different now as opposed to then?
In a nut shell, somebody asks a question here for a commercial product they are developing and they get pointed to a thread, or a code snippet ends up in the thread, and that code isn't MIT/ PD, or worse somebody combines them to provide a solution with the best of intentions.
What happens from there?
Suddenly, that answer comes with conditions where it didn't before... The more mixed licenses there are, the more discussions there are, the more conditions there are, and pretty soon it gets kind of difficult to understand what makes sense. Again, as a community, that's worth discussion because that is a significant change.
That is the ONLY reason I have for advocating we keep our MIT / PD norms intact. Again, that's forum code, not all code associated with Propeller chips, and I do not believe that is zealotry at all. ...and no I'm not taking that personally at all, as my intentions are to preserve value and the ability to add value here, that's it.
On a personal note, I am dismayed over the fact that this kind of squabble impacted us before we even saw P2 chips for real. Sheesh. I'm working on a nice "Using the Monitor" document, and am going back to that now, but this whole thing did make me think some. Has something changed with P2 that we don't even have yet? Should I not just contribute it here as I did my last works of that type?
Edit: Just saw Phil's post. I hope that all holds true.
As for the licensing issue, I have been thinking about it all day, and it still annoys me that at this phase in the game for Prop2 you felt the need to assert protection over some code for it. It's NOT even a final chip. What's in the FPGA has no guarantee of even making it into the final silicon. What good is your asserted protection of code if the CLUT functionality has to change before things are final? You could at least wait until there are engineering samples that prove out the bulk of the features working. On top of that, it's not even that novel of an idea. (of course, I am against the idea that any software can be claimed to be novel enough to warrant protections). We are all digging into the Prop2 and figuring out what it can do and coming up with new ways to do things. Thinking that any one of us is not capable of thinking up the idea or coding up the feature is simply arrogant. However, the thing that was most annoying to me is how you dressed up this code with your assertion of code protection as a xmas present to us? Sorry, but from my perspective it's more like a xmas present to yourself.
Anyway, free and open discussion and sharing has always been what this community is about. We also attribute things to people willingly. That's part of the reason I stuck around and started contributing. Having people come in and try to stake claims, just hinders things. If people start slapping licenses worse than MIT on everything they post, than I'm just going to walk away.
Full disclosure here, I am STRONGLY opposed to software patents, and I am STRONGLY opposed to GPL/LGPL or any license that is more restrictive than MIT. I choose to use MIT simply because I want to be free of liability if someone uses my code and then tries to blame me for problems. If we lived in a less sue happy world, then I would forgo any licensing at all.
As for the absurd idea of enforcing a license on postings in the forums here. All I can say is, what are you guys thinking? Seriously? This is just about the worst idea ever. I know Parallax and Ken/Chip well enough to know they they will have nothing of it. If you want your posting of code to be licensed somehow, then you attach the license.
with such a license usable in projects covered by another license, like GCC for example?"
Phil That's because we are not discussing patents here. Copyright law does not care if you invented or discovered anything.
Most of what localroger said is true, but he overlooked one major factor. Code does not have to be used by thousands and thousands of people to become very valuable. A simple piece of source code used my one machine could be worth millions of dollars. For instance, let's say there is a manufacturer in Houston Texas making rubber baby buggy bumpers and the machine that produces these bumpers outputs 30,000 units per day. However with the use of a unique algorithim posted within the Parallax forums, this manufacturer can increase yearly production by 50%. Now let's assume, this manufacturer is using this source code in an unaltered state, with no license attached. Should this manufacturer pay the original creator a fair sum of money? I think he should. Would this manufacturer be liable for damages if sued for infringement? I think he would, providing the work is registered and has a proper notice.
I personally have not evaluated Bill's source code because it is above my pay grade, but there are several issues here from what I have read.
- Bill is a contributor and I think he should continue to contribute.
- Even though I will probably not use his code, I still think of it as a gift, because he did in fact include a license. If he did not include a license, then it could not be considered a gift, because without a license, the code is useless for others.
- Of course the issue of advance knowledge provides some unanswered questions, but is Bill really to blame for having such advance knowledge? I don't think so. Parallax chose to provide him with the advance knowledge for some reason or another. And considering this choice, I don't believe it is fair for everyone to come down so hard on Bill. If his work is of significant value, then someone (perhaps Parallax) should just buy his source code and attach whatever license they like to it.
- It was previously mentioned, that if you don't like the original license, a request can be made to the author for a special license. I agree.
Bottom line_______________________If you don't like Bill's license or code, then don't use it and create your own, then there will be no issue of licensing. As mentioned, copyright does not apply to processes or methods, so even if you stumble upon the same conclusions as Bill, as long as you do not copy his source code, there is nothing he can do about it, providing he does not apply for a patent.
I'm hope that this are not addressed to me.
If I post anything it is always what I'm are thinking --- Not as others bit/melody.
And that talk I take as much discrediting (You are non better in any way people as me).
Anyway I often feel that the best of inventions are obvious after someone has shown you it. Your original LMM was such an invention, small,
simple, obvious. Except nobody had thought of it before. Half the genius of a good invention is seeing the need and the possibility where no one else does.
Your so-called unlicensed code is actually all copyrighted.
Yep, but how much has been contributed by commercial interests? The OBEX is devoid of commercial contributions.
Let me see if I can find this evil evil evil evil license ... nope, is it posted in the forums or in sources only?
Link to license
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
That does not seem right. The link you posted above is to a page that says "You may not use this work for commercial purposes." Which is contrary to Bills statements.
Also I'm confused because this page about the same licence does not include any commercial restrictions. Or I have not found them yet.
Bill links to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode , which is not the same licence as Sapieha linked.
Googling for GPL compatibility got me this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_software_licenses#Approvals
In there it says that version 3 of by-sa is both Debian and FSF approved but not GPL compatible. Where the issue with GPL is, I wouldn't know.
One tiny bit of additional information regarding your item #3:
For my experiments, I used the FPGA configuration that was publicly posted in the Propeller forum, and documentation posted to that forum or publicly available from the Parallax Semiconductor site.
I did not have any extra private information - excepting what might have occurred to me, or that the results of my experiments on equipment I owned before programming it with the publicly available FPGA image.
Both You and I know that BASE license can have clauses that can differ from original.
It is always up to writer -- write in that clauses what are possible else impossible.
I think as most of them have not read that base license before them starting complain and attack Bill and in some cases even me.
Me only I think for as My integrity are not to sale -- And I always say what I think regardless PRICE I know I then pay for that.
I have big respect for You --- So lets it stay that
Regards
Don't spoil this place and P2 with licensing war. Now, this is not a single license for single piece of good code. It can be problem of spoiling this community. Don't do it, or you will end like other mirocontrollers, with all bunch of incompatible licenses and licensing problems. "I cannot use this with that, prohibited"
If I created a useless piece of code that I was very proud of and attached the very same license that Bill used, I doubt that any complaint would be lodged. It would most likely just be accepted because no one cared to use my code. However in Bill's case, I assume his code is useful, and everyone wants him to put it up for grabs, so they complain
And here's the extensive list maintained by CC - http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses :O Meaning CC ShareAlike licenses are still only compatible with themselves.
It's not a problem for Wikipedia but I might have to agree that this is a problem for sharing source code.
That's not so easy. Having a peek is just natural. As Heater has said, it's obvious once you know. But it can be frustratingly difficult to implement when you have only the idea.
Sharing the code is very much an objective here. And making it GPL compatible is kind of important if I'm not mistaken.
Now You are saying ---- Microsoft can't own theirs software patents ---- Them use obvious Intel instructions set !!
Simplest is best.
With each optimization the performance went up but it maxed out at about 60MFlops, a bit short of the theoretical maximum. At that point the Intel guy explained that they knew how to make the final tweak to the code to get to 66MFlops but that he could not tell us because some other company had come up with it and had rights on it.
So, even Intel did not know how to program their own chip when they built it!
Not sure how this story is relevant here but that few line code snippet for an 860 FFT was preciously guarded at the time and of quite some value to Intel. It also has a parallel in the way that Bill Henning came up with the LMM technique for running big assembler programs on the Propeller which was unknown to Parallax.
That's the problem, there is no simple solution. In my opinion, any person involved with programming should be well aware of basic copyright laws. The only real solution would be to require that a license be attached to every piece of code submitted in the forum and I personally think that is absurd.