Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Rolf wrote:
>   
>> 'Dos Box' or more techically a CMD shell.
>>     
>
> Exactly.  A command shell in windows is not DOS.  It looks a bit like the
> DOS command shell and can run some DOS programs, but it is definitely not
> DOS.  All my programs are full 32 bit executables.
>
>   
I see you decided not to quote the context on that one. I said "If you 
really want to split hairs on definition...". I guess you do want to 
split hairs. Go ahead and waste your time/words. I said that I wanted 
integration with MPLAB, not a DOS program. You can waste your time 
telling me it is not a DOS program, but a 'command shell'... but that 
does not make it MPLab. Like when you go the box store and ask for a TV 
and the salesman shows you a freezer... you say "I want a TV not a 
Fridge!"... the salesman says, it's not a Fridge, it is a really cool 
whizz-bang freezer! You say 'OK, it's a frezer, not a fridge, but that's 
not important, it's not a TV', and you say "Exactly, a freezer is not a 
fridge!, It looks a bit like a fridge, and can make some fridge things 
cold, but it is definitely not a fridge.".

>
>> As for taking the dbankif code out of your environment, your legal
>> notices practically exclude that option anyway.
>>     
>
> No it doesn't.  All it says is that you have to copy the copyright notice at
> the top of the file.  
>   
Are you sure...?

Macro's by definition are included (verbatim) in all places they are 
used. If I wrote the code:

; Macro file mac.inc
mac macro
    ; This code is copyright by embed inc.
    nop
  endm

---

include mac.inc
mycode
  mac ; call the mac macro

Any self-respecting copyright lawyer may make a convincing case that all 
the code in 'mycode' is copyright to embed inc. The disassembly listing 
will be riddled with copyright code, if not the notice itself.

Are you a self-respecting lawyer?

It is irresponsible to provide legal advice when not qualified and 
retained.... just like it would be irresponsible of me to use your code 
without first consulting a lawyer...

The way your copyright notice is worded does not give me confidence that 
the above code is not copyright encumbered ... and further, your 
assertions on this list give me no comfort either.

There are other licenses out there somewhat similar to yours, and legal 
precedence suggests that I will be right with my assertion that the 
copyright of the derived work will at best be ambiguous. Remeber that 
the compiled/assembled version of the code may for copyright purposes 
considered to be a derived work (translation). And given your 
nit-picking and hair-splitting on the DOS/win32 issue I would not like 
to be in a position where you (or embed inc) takes a stand on the use of 
your code....

In fact, now that you have made me think about things more I will 
expressly suggest to people evaluating your environment that the 
resulting code, whether they hack your environment or not, may be 
peppered with other code copyright to embed-inc, and that ownership of 
the resulting application may be ambiguous, and they should first 
consult a lawyer. Just using your environment may have legal consequences.

This is reinforced by the way in which people often determine whether 
applications are 'pirated' or not, by disassembly and inspection of the 
code routines...

Rolf
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist