[Coco] FPGA 63x09

[Bill Barnes]

Agreed, they have to care enough, AND feel persuing a suit is worth the costs.

-Later!   -WB-    -- BABIC Computer Consulting.


--- On Sat, 3/28/09, Rick Taylor <coder32768 at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Rick Taylor <coder32768 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Coco] FPGA 63x09
To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco at maltedmedia.com>
Date: Saturday, March 28, 2009, 4:15 PM

You know, on that last one - in order to be sued, someone has to actually
care enough to sue you. I wonder if anyone would really care if we were
doing this. If this were to go forward and people were to ask forgiveness
rather than permission, how much forgiving are we talking about here?

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Bill Barnes <da3m0n_slay3r at yahoo.com>wrote:

> --- On Fri, 3/27/09, Jeff Teunissen <deek at d2dc.net> wrote:
>

> > From: Jeff Teunissen <deek at d2dc.net>
> > Subject: Re: [Coco] FPGA 63x09
> > To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco at maltedmedia.com>
> > Date: Friday, March 27, 2009, 10:52 PM
> > jdaggett at gate.net
> > wrote:

> > It sucks, but that's also how it is with computers.
> > Ironically, because of the
> > old programming languages, many of which were much less
> > expressive than
> > today's funky stuff like Perl and Python, there's a lot of
> > old code out there
> > with very little "speech" in it because all the programmer
> > could do was tell
> > the compiler/interpreter what to do. With today's languages
> > (Perl being an
> > extreme example), two programmers might do the same task in
> > *radically*
> > different ways and both methods could well be optimal (or
> > at least irreducible).
>
> And, unfortunately, some company will still call IP violation, if they feel
> it's worth the expenses, and if they claim some rights to the code in
> question.