CompuServe Thread

#C LTD

6 messages in this thread
#114049From: Perry S. Kivolowitz/ASDMar 15, 1988 9:56 PM
Ben, thank you for the (almost) complement, but I must tell you that writting a driver (vd0:) is much easier than writting a handler (ram:). Can I have some feed back on the following: 1.3 workbench comes with a recoverable ram disk that supports the 1.2.1 kickstart autoboot stuff. This allows you to boot from your recoverable ram disk. However, the recoverable ram disk is (apart from the autobooting) a giant step backwards. It does STATIC memory allocation and is quite slow. I don't have time to add autobooting to vd0:. What I was wondering was what would you people think if I released the source code to the recoverable ram disk. Would anyone out there be interested in adding the autoboot stuff? I might be willing to do so ONLY if I can be sure that it would be impossible for anyone to SELL the derivitive code as a product. Anyone have a feeling for the legal issues here? BTW adding autoboot is not hard. Perry /exit
#114089From: Steve AhlstromMar 16, 1988 12:00 AM
Perry, I like the idea of you giving the source to someone you feel can and will do the job correctly. But I really shudder of all the hacks that will emerge if you made the code freely distributable! I hope Ben picks up the gauntlet cuz I know he could do it justice.
#114091From: John DraperMar 16, 1988 12:32 AM
Perry, I go along with Steve on this one… release it to someone you can trust, rather than making it generally available. While I have always been a fan of freely available source code, I doubt you can safeguard against commercial explloitation of the code with any practicality. -larry
#114110From: Don Curtis/SYSOPMar 16, 1988 2:49 AM
Perry, I'd love to see your source code…BUT there are legal issues for you to consider. I certainly understand why you don't want the source and/or deritivatives of it used in commercial products..why should someone else get paid for your efforts! That's the rub…how do you prove their code came from your code? Any fairly competent programmer can change code a bit, rewrite a few sections here and there and suddenly you have no way to prove the source was a derivative of your code. It only takes 1 selfish person to screw things up for us honest folks, so it's up to you…yes, I'd certainly like to see the code. Don
#114181From: Darron C. KnutsonMar 16, 1988 9:18 PM
Perry, It's not really a legal problem with restricting further commercial use of your source code, it's the practical problem of proving that a particular commercial product uses your source and the expense inherent in prosecuting such a claim in court. I assume that you've copyrighted your code. As owner of the work, you can license its use on any lawful condition you want. But legal rights these days really are worth no more than the practical ability to enforce them. Lawsuits of the sort you'd have to consider to protect your intellectual property rights in this field tend to be very costly and often are difficult to justify on a dollars and cents basis. I think you'd be far better able to police license restrictions if you were to license a _small_ number of people and thereby be better able to control things and trace any violations. Darron
#114229From: Ben BlishMar 17, 1988 3:19 AM
Perry – I think you need to read the file on the "readMe" disk of the 1.3 gamma4 stuff titled "You Must Read This" very carefully… I think you just made public some non-public things; probably should delete that message, too. In any case, I'd prefer you NOT release your vd0 code – someone would only break it and confuse the issue – if you're going to release it, give it to someone who you *know* will carry on your tradition of sharp, bug-free coding… cheath, or someone like that. Someone community minded, and technically immpeccable. –Ben–