> Unless your macro-processor *copies* the copyright macro in to the file 
> that get assembled in to your program. In which case your entire program 
> is now a derivative of Olin's code, and you no longer own anything.
> 
> Tell the world I am wrong, but then you'll be wrong. Anyone a lawyer? 
> Does the macro pre-processor copy the macro for every macro reference in 
> the main program? My feeling is that it does!

I am not a lawyer, but I took a few law courses at university.

One basic fact about law that flabbergasted me is that it is often 
unpredictable. Lawyers might be able to give you an *indication* of what 
a judge (or in your case, jury) might decide, but they are often not 
sure. Like: will this PIC circuit work or not without any power line 
decoupling? The best we engineers can say: it won't work reliably. But 
we can't guarantee that a given circuit won't work.

Whether macro inclusion is to be considered a copy in the sense that it 
would invoke Olin's requirement that his copyright notice should be 
included at the top is I think *unclear*. On the one hand there is 
clearly some copying going on, on the other hand it would require that 
the copyright notice is present in the list file, the object file, the 
.hex file, and the programmed target chip, which is clearly not the 
intention of the author.

IMHO Olin's copyright could be worded a bit clearer (that it does not 
extend to the .obj, .hex, or beyond) to give everyone (including 
corporate lawyers playing the devils' advocate) a warm fuzyy feeling. On 
the other hand the *intention* is very clear as it is now.

-- 

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu

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