[edit]There is newer version: 1.0.08 pre-alpha. See it on: http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=254 [/edit]

Hi all.

This is some kind of "intermediate" version. The size of the executable is
bigger (168k) because the entire FASM 1.49 is implanted in the code.
Read "History.inc" and "TODO.inc" for details.



To the team: Here (http://opensource.org/licenses/) is a very full collection of the open source license templates. Please take a look and give some opinion what license you think is more apropriate for Fresh.
(For now, I like "Artistic license" maybe because of the name )

[EDIT]Outdated attachement removed. There should be newer version. possibly in another thread.[/EDIT]

NASM >>> GPL // RosAsm >>> GPL // ... FASM >>> Anything but GPL...

Welcome collaborations


Betov.

I'll do some looking in to teh lisences, but I't probably take a few days before I can give any suggestions there (got a few things in school, for instance an excursion on thursday -- I'd rather sit by the computer by sadly (because it's just sea/lake Biology relatet, no human fysiology here ) it's a vital part of the grades in Biology A).

Betov, you seem to be a bit hypesensitive on this point; why every license but GPL has to be your enemy? Artistic license is just a way of keeping the sign of original author on the code, while you can use it any way you want.

Don't start. Had enough on win32asmcommunity board and masmforum.

Thomasz, yes, this _is_ a sensitive point. Things would be and go better if all the "alternative Assemblers" would have the same License.

Also, i have difficulties to understand this "sign of original author on the code". What do you really mean? Are you afraid that someone take the Source, replace "Thomasz is the Author" by "Bill is the Author" and re-distribute? Author rights are Author rights, whatever License...


Betov.

Hi, Betov.
It's hard to me to explain why I feel a slight antiphaty to GPL, but I will try.
So, GPL is too "fanatical" for me. It's not very free to force every program that use your code to use your license. I understand Free software as a gift to the human race. It's a gift for everyone and everyone can make with his gift whatever he wants. One will use it, second will sell it, third will take it to pieces and will use these pieces to build something different. I can't (and I don't want) to control what everyone will do with his copy of my program. The only wish I have, when I make this gift is to provide that no one will steal my code and will claim that this is his own code. GPL is restrictive license, it's as well restrictive as MS comersial license. But GPL simply restricts users in other things. It's not appropriate for gifts. If MS EULA (and other similars) is the negative pole of some "force field" the GNU GPL is positive pole. But I want to stay in the point of equilibrium, not at the poles.
So, it's my opinion. Not very clearly expressed, but....

Regards.

John, i don't know if being "Pro-GPL" may be assimilated to being "fanatical", but what i see, every now and then, is that, actually, there is a uge and "interresting" "Anti-GPL" mouvement, in the Assembly area.

Your own sentence:

>"It's not very free to force every program that use your code to use your license"

... shows clearly at what demential point of propaganda we have fallen to: Where did you see that the Applications outputed by a GPL Programming Language _must_ be GPL?

I well know, now, that this is what the Anti-GPL Propaganda whants you to believe. I discovered this when reading the description of RosAsm done by Hutch, when i was wondering why he formulated his description in a so strange manner... But, well,... how can you fall into so big traps?

The only real fact is that GPL is a real problem for the dominant Companies, whereas they have lived very well aside Public Domain and other free Licenses since the beginning of Personal Computers. This is why, for example, MASM and MicroSoft defenders feel in need of releasing their "free" productions under some Licenses that are designed to fight _against_ GPL (see HLA Public Domain License, for example), and to make people believe in such incredible lies and propaganda as the "inheritability" of the GPL License.

Now, for your actual License choice problem, please, again, and though, up to now, i never got any chance with any of my "cooperative" offers, please, consider that, as you said by yourself to a Guy, up there, starting one another IDE, "Let's work together", and so on, what made me laugh so much, given the situation -...-, if the alternative Assemblers have all the same License, this is a much better opportunity for cooperations. The only sure result of any other choice is that, if, for example, i want to reuse something you will have written for Fresh in RosAsm, i will have no choice but rewrite it from scratch (and though you have not been interrested, up to now, yes, also: Or reverse...).


Please, John, think twice. Betov.

Hi. Betov.
I think that there is some kind of misunderstood what I actually wanted to say. I never claim (or think) that, for example, the program created and compiled with RosAsm must be GPL. This is simply stupid. (But I never talk so stupid things )

I simply talk about what I need from freeware license. I am not anti-GPL, but I am simply looking the license maximaly suitable for my needs.

Let suppose, that I am working under license XYZ. What you think about, I to get some parts from RosAsm and to put them in my program with sign: "This part of the code is from Betov's RosAsm." - I think that GPL not let me this kind of action.
On other hand, if you, or any other one, want to copy some part from my free program and to put it to his own program: commercial, or FreeWare or ShareWare program, open source or not, I have no any objections.
I only want a few things:
1. On visible place in the doc's, or about box, or both, to stay copyright my name: "Folowing parts of this program are copyright John Found. You can get the original sources from http://somewhere.net".
2. No one can claim that he write the code written by me.
3. If the program is not Free and Open source, the sources of original work to be available for free, the same way the customer get the commercial version.

This is exactly what I need from the freeware license. Shortly I need "Honest using" from everyone that uses, copyes or modifies my free sources.

BUT, there is one little problem with GPL. If you use my code (for example some very smart procedure ) in GPL product, the procedure is still my. So if someone wants to copy this procedure from GPL-ed program, and to put it to his non-GPL program, he can't, although I give him the right to do so. And in this case, I am forced to include in my XYZ license some clause, that you can't turn my code to GPL, because GPL license prohibits the using of my code the way I want.

Uff, it is very hard to explain all that with my bad english. ( It's hard to me to explain this on my native language too. )

Regards.

OK. For the language miss-understanding i think we are on the same rails, John (Am i not the guy who created the Betovian language ??? ).

I think i more or less see your point with this problem. Now, not considering your real motivations for coming to such strange conclusions (i have to apologize i effectively do not undertand everything...), let us go on with your logic:

_______________________________

Version 1:

1) You release your work under some License that let me re-use it the way i like.

2) The way i like is GPL.

3) Your work is GPLed.

This is absolutely impossible.

_______________________________

Version 2:

1) You release your work under some License that let me re_use it the way i like.

2) The way i like is commercial closed sources

3) The App is commercial closed sources, but your own Sources Part is licenced XXX and provided

This is perfectely correct!!!...

_______________________________

Mind you, the LGPL does much better than this. (Though LGPL is appropriated for Libraries and not for Programming Languages...).

_______________________________


IMO, there is zero problem with knowing who did this and who did that.

And anyway... who cares? What do you think i care if some well known ass-hole, took several of my ideas for his own fame without talking of RosAsm but to say that it is "not professional" and the like? Nothing at all. Everybody knows that i am the first one who proposed, for example to make use of dummy dash Lines to turn the long Numbers readable, and so on. I really do not care at all.

How could i patent ideas, anyway??? (and what is more important than good ideas???).

_______________________________


> "1. On visible place in the doc's, or about box, or both, to stay copyright my name: "Following parts of this program are copyright John Found. You can get the original sources from http://somewhere.net". "

Who did you ever saw, in the GPL mouvement, stripping off an Author Name from a Source???!!!... This would be an immediate sues case.


> "2. No one can claim that he write the code written by me. "

Same comment.


> "3. If the program is not Free and Open source, the sources of original work to be available for free, the same way the customer get the commercial version. "

What else does the GPL say? And any case, who would ever sell (or BUY???!!!...) an Assembly IDE??? What are you dreaming about?


> "So if someone wants to copy this procedure from GPL-ed program, and to put it to his non-GPL program, he can't, although I give him the right to do so...

This is exactely what i do... for short parts. RosAsm may be considered a wide reusable snippets collection. The limit is with reusing complete parts (particulary the Disassembler Engine) under a Non-GPL License. This is not the GPL that decides where is the sues limit: This is me, and my Author Rights. Mind you, I, as an Author, am perfectely allowed to violate the GPL when i like to. I am even allowed to stop the GPL and to make it PD or commervial when i like to. This is my work, and the other volunteers work, not the GPL work.


> "... And in this case, I am forced to include in my XYZ license some clause, that you can't turn my code to GPL, because GPL license prohibits the using of my code the way I want."

In other words, because you want what GPL offers, plus the freedom of not applying your own GPL tiny rights, you need an anti-GPL License.


A bit of logic? If i try to summarize all you say, i come down to this formulation:

"I want my work to be free, but i don't want someone else to say he wrote it". This is pure mythology and phantasm, IMHO. Even in PD, Authors Rights are Authors Rights. As soon you publish something, it is yours. The Licenses are _not_ the Authors Rights.



Betov.

/me don't understand (perhaps it's the cold I've caught )
What's impossible?

JohnFound: sorry, haven't gotten any time to loo throught the lisences -- don't know if I'm able to do it this weekend (real life matters).

Betov needs to be sent to Russia where no one cares about licenses and copies all freely.

Well.....actually, i don't know this source of discussion......why is so important to others what kind of licence John's take????
I think that the only one who can cares about it....IT'S JOHN!!!! And of course....Tommy and Scientica.....coz they're are part of the FRESH Team.


I think that Betov is taking this like a personnal issue....... and i don't know why???

Actually i agree with John.....he's the author, and it's ok, if he wants some reconize of his work......as you all may know.....i think i zed this 100 times i'm a programmer in too many languages....and gotta a homepage, where i offer all the programs and games i have developed.....as freeware of course......did i use any licence??? No......coz i just don't give my source codes.......why? Coz i have seen people who actually steal the codes and change the names, the layouts, the colors and then zed....."Look what i made"......that's make me angry
It's ok, when someone mails me asking for my source codes.....and i got my own kind of license......(if it already exits.....i don't care )......i just ask those one who ask for my codes......to put at least an acknowlegdment with my name and my small company.....something like this:

"Thanx to Alvaro Tejada Galindo
from SinglePath games design."

If you made the code......you deserve something
Whatever you decided to do John......i will support you, as well as all the FRESH Team......and sorry Betov if i missunderstood you......my english totally sux

Here's the asmedit.txt (containing history, messages reference etc.) JohnFound... (Documentation for AsmEditEx v.1.4)

G2G to school! So long!

Regards,
Tommy

[EDIT]Outdated attachement removed. There should be newer version. possibly in another thread.[/EDIT]