On 3/30/11 23:43, "Borut Razem" <borut.ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Kustaa, > >thanks for the detailed explanation of copyrights! >Probably such an approach would be good for the court, but there is an >other point of view: moral rights. Yes there is the question of moral. > >We all know that there is a lot more then hex addresses and register >names we are talking about. I don't agree. As far as the header files are concerned that is all there is to it. > I think Microchip is not concerned about >include files themselves, Yes I'm sure they have concerns, but they is their problem. >but about copying/ stealing of the knowhow >(resources, time, money...) stealing is quite a strong word especially when connected with money in the context we are discussing. In no way could anyone be stealing money. Stealing resources/time is also way too strong to my liking, even if if the headers were copyrighted, which I deny, copying them would not take anything from them. >they are investing into the development of >pic MCUs. Sure, and law gives them, for a good reason, a variety of options to protect their investment, such as trade secrets, patents, trade marks, copyright. >The statement that the include files can be used only with >their own chips is just an additional measure of protection. Yes, that is their attempt, but since they are not original works of art the copyright law offers no protection. >This >statement is even not written in the .inc files: This would not help them in the court. > they wrote it when I >asked them about the licensing status, but I believe we should respect >it anyway. If we respect it we can never have GPL or any other headers as anything reasonable we will create will be close enough to their files to be considered copies. >I already explained them that we have scripts to convert >MPASM include files to .c and .h files. This is not a problem for them, >they just want that the statement is valid for the generated files too. See, they want to claim that they own the names and addresses which they can't and which would in my mind be wrong in the moral sense as well. > >Maybe you are right and legally we don't have to obey them, but this is >their moral right which we have to respect. I strongly disagree with that view. There is are no moral grounds giving them monopoly and exclusive right to those hex addresses and names of the registers. Indeed that would be against good of the society as it would hinder technical progress and economical growth. > >This is my personal opinion which can also be changed if somebody shows >(and convinces) me that I'm wrong. I hope I did! > >P.S.: and this is also why I wrote that I'm not 100% sure: there is no >big difference if the files are generated from XML database, .inc files >or from documentation... See where respecting their "moral right" leads to, no one could ever create any software that links to another software if trivial headers that are purely technical/functional in nature were copyrighted, that is clearly not the intention of the law and society. The explicitly allows reverse engineering to ensure compatibility and society encourages competition but if you cannot create those headers you have no compatibility and no competition. br Kusti ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Create and publish websites with WebMatrix Use the most popular FREE web apps or write code yourself; WebMatrix provides all the features you need to develop and publish your website. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-webmatrix-sf _______________________________________________ Sdcc-user mailing list Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
