Rolf wrote:
> 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.

There is a huge difference between DOS and Windows.  It is not splitting
hairs.  If you meant GUI versus command line, you should have said that.

> Macro's by definition are included (verbatim) in all places they are
> used.

We're talking about copying the file itself, not how the machine later uses
its contents as part of creating a derived executable.

 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.

First this isn't what I'm doing.  The copyright notice doesn't appear in any
macro, only once at the beginning of the file outside of all macros.
Second, even with this silly and contrived example, the copyright wouldn't
apply to the derived binary.  That would be a license, not a copyright
issue.

> It is irresponsible to provide legal advice when not qualified and
> retained....

Although that appears to be what you are doing.

> 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.

Then please show a pointer to such precedence.

> 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.

OK, I can see now that you're just being deliberatly contrary and
argumentative.

I let people use my code, and the only thing they have to do in return is
preserve the copyright notice at the top of the file.  You can otherwise use
it any way you want.  You don't have to publish your versions, or any
enhancements you've made, and you can even sell the result.  My stuff is way
more liberal than the GNU licesenses, for example.  I'm not sure exactly
what your beef is, but if you don't want to use my stuff you don't have to.
There is no reason to go around spreading misinformation and fear about it
though.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist