Re: Asm For Nerds


Betov wrote:
Betov wrote:


Did you noticed that:

1) This "permission" to _me_ _alone_ does not make any
sense, as demonstrated in a neighbough post of mines.

Does it matter whether it makes sense (to you) or not?
It was quite explicit that the permission was to you alone and I was
not granting this permission to anyone else.

OK, Clown. You gave permission of reuse to a DP and shared
Project, with exclusive rights to one single maintainer.

Yes. That's what I did.

I had not yet heared of this trick for killing any collective
effort.

If you weren't willing to put in the effort to make the translation
(and, apparently, you *did* put in some effort or you wouldn't be
crying about it so much now), then you should have graciously rejected
the offer and said something like "I'm sorry, but this won't do the
project any good." Instead, you told us how wonderful it was that I
had given you permission to use AoA/16 as part of your project (or have
you conveniently forgotten that, how?).



Congratulation for the innovation.

Nothing innovative about it. That's the way the copyright law works. If
you're not familiar with the copyright law, perhaps you ought to study
it closely, and the ramifications thereof, before taking on projects
like that one.


Oh, in *separate* agreements, I've given many other people permission
to do things with AoA/16. That does not mean you have the right to
violate the very specific permissions I gave you.

Hopefully for them, they never did a thing with your bullshits:

Most of them turned out like your's, that is, the projects faded away
when the person who took on the project realized the magnitude of the
work involved. There was one big difference between those projects and
your's, however. Most people who took on the project (generally
involving translation into a different language) didn't make jerks out
of themselves and blast AoA when they figured out they wouldn't be able
to do the job.



Immagine somebody would make a trivial Copy&Paste of _their_
works!!!

Actually, a "trivial cut & paste" of their translations is exactly the
copyright permission I granted. Nothing more. That is, someone cannot
take a portion of that work and include it as part of another,
different, document.

I actually gave you *far* more leeway than I'd given anyone else. I
gave you permission to make substantial changes to AoA, not simply
translate it to another language. That, I'm afraid, was my big mistake.
You really messed things up and now the inclusion of my stuff in those
documents, even if they weren't associated with you personally (which
has its own problems) is an embarassment.



If you can't abide by the
agreement, and decide you must diseminate the task, then you violate
the agreement.

The 32 Bits Assembly Tutorials were already DP and so forth
"diseminate " before you jumped on the band-wagon, Clown.

As long as your documents contain my work, derivations of my work,
translations of my work, etc., it doesn't matter what other original,
public domain, or copyrighted material appears in the documents, I
still (possibly jointly) own the copyright on that work. If you want to
eliminate that problem, then you need to make sure you've not only
eliminated all my words from the document, but also show that you're
using a different structure (i.e., outline) and so on. Just sticking
on some other tutorials does not clean up the copyright issue.



So said, even _after_, you would have to explain to the amaized
people, how a DP Document could NOT be "diseminated".

When it also contains copyrighted work. The appearance of one
copyrighted item, sans "fair use", contaminates the whole document. So
you better make sure it's all clean.

I refer you back to your post where you are asking for help, in
violation of the permission I granted. I assume you've deleted that
thread (and the file) from your board, right?

No, Clown. Your left-over Paragraph has been deleted, and the
zip re-uploaded. Are you dreaming that the RosAsm Project could
be stopped because, years ago, you would have been accepted
in a collective effort? Dream on, clown.


You honestly think that the paragraph in question was the only one?
What a fool you are to think this. You realize that this was about the
*first* paragraph in the first document in the zip file, don't you?
It's not like I had to look very hard to find a copyright violation.
Of all the copyright violations in the book, that's going to be the
*easiest* one to find. You're trying to convince us that it's the only
one?

Let me give you a hint -- grab a program that computes the "longest
common subsequence" or "longest common substring" and run your
documents against AoA/16. I suspect you'll find a *lot* of copyright
violations.

If you can't find a program that does this, look up "longest common
subsequence" on the internet and write your own version. Then rerun the
program and delete all the common substrings it finds until there are
no more (or it starts finding trivial substrings that are clearly
defensible as independent creations).

As you've voiced displeasure over having AoA material in your
documentation, I would expect that you would *jump* at the chance to do
this.



So we did it with the .HLP version of B_U_Asm, the various
zip offered to the upload, and all:

Congratulations, Clown. You succeeded to make we spoil around
one hour of work, with your insanities.

And you think you're free of copyright infringement after that one hour
(plus, of course, the numerous hours you've wasted on posts to this
thread)? Good luck. And God help anyone who takes on that project
until you've guaranteed it to be free of AoA material. Because that
makes them culpable as well.



That's not what I see in the "Asm for Nerds" package you're asking
other people to work on in violation of the permission I granted you.

No, Clown:

1) There is NO material from your vicious hand in the zip, that
i proposed.

Are you sure?
Can you prove this at this moment?
I didn't think so.
Hint: longest common subsequence.



2) The "Asm for Nerds" is nothing but a idea on the air.

I'm sorry, but "floating ideas to see if someone will take them on" is
still a violation of the rights I granted you when I gave you
permission to use AoA/16.


3) I do not know, at all, if the volunteers will really do the
job.

And you better pray, for their sake, that they wisely choose not to do
this until you guarantee that the work in question is free of copyright
encumberance.



4) I have no idea of what the Volunteers will do, if they do
something.

Again, if they do *anything* then *you* are in violation of copyright
if any AoA/16 material remains in the work (sans "fair use"
allowances).


5) One thing i am confident, is that, if they do something, they
will do a way better job than you, and definitively, will never
need any bull*** from you, for doing so.

It doesn't matter whether their work is better, the same, or worse,
than mine. What matters is that if what they work on contains
copyrighted material, then *you* are in violation of our agreement and
*they* are violating copyright themselves.

Would you do that to them? What a great way to treat your volunteers.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

.

Loading