IBM turning Power into Open Source?

Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

What exactly is this article saying? That IBM is now encouraging other
manufacturers to clone and extend its Power chips?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=620&e=2&u=/nf/20040401/bs_nf/23584

Yousuf Khan
25 answers Last reply
More about turning power open source
  1. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <d8bc87ef.0404012215.22c56c56@posting.google.com>,
    news.yaya.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com (Black Jack) writes:
    |> What exactly is this article saying? That IBM is now encouraging other
    |> manufacturers to clone and extend its Power chips?
    |>
    |> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=620&e=2&u=/nf/20040401/bs_nf/23584

    No, but IBM have done that since the start of PowerPC, as did
    SGI with MIPS and Sun with SPARC (the last even more so). It
    is an encouragement to design and build supporting chips and
    systems using the PowerPC.

    As far as I know, there has been no major change in policy since
    the very first PowerPC designs, and this is merely yet another
    twitch of the publicity machine.

    Note that nowhere above did I say "for free" :-)


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Black Jack wrote:

    > What exactly is this article saying? That IBM is now encouraging
    > other manufacturers to clone and extend its Power chips?

    Ars Technica's take:
    http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1080794898.html
  3. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 12:39:52 +0200, Grumble <invalid@kma.eu.org>
    wrote:
    >Black Jack wrote:
    >
    >> What exactly is this article saying? That IBM is now encouraging
    >> other manufacturers to clone and extend its Power chips?
    >
    >Ars Technica's take:
    >http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1080794898.html

    My take on it? Mostly a lot of hot air. I call this one 99%
    marketing hype and maybe 1% substance.

    IBM does plan to make it a little easier to license PowerPC cores, but
    it's not really going to be "open" at all, you'll still have to pay
    IBM to license the cores and IBM still controls the instruction set
    and most of the IP.

    Their plan seems to be exactly what they were already doing with
    Nintendo and their Gamecube processor (custom PowerPC core, based off
    of IBM's 400 series chips but with some customer Nintendo stuff).
    They might be making things a little bit easier and maybe even a bit
    cheaper, but it's basically just business as usual.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  4. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On a sunny day (Fri, 02 Apr 2004 10:22:58 -0500) it happened Tony Hill
    <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in
    <b21r60hkh9sjrqap8f16u87744lk0d3f5e@4ax.com>:

    >On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 12:39:52 +0200, Grumble <invalid@kma.eu.org>
    >wrote:
    >>Black Jack wrote:
    >>
    >>> What exactly is this article saying? That IBM is now encouraging
    >>> other manufacturers to clone and extend its Power chips?
    >>
    >>Ars Technica's take:
    >>http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1080794898.html
    >
    >My take on it? Mostly a lot of hot air. I call this one 99%
    >marketing hype and maybe 1% substance.
    >
    >IBM does plan to make it a little easier to license PowerPC cores, but
    >it's not really going to be "open" at all, you'll still have to pay
    >IBM to license the cores and IBM still controls the instruction set
    >and most of the IP.
    >
    >Their plan seems to be exactly what they were already doing with
    >Nintendo and their Gamecube processor (custom PowerPC core, based off
    >of IBM's 400 series chips but with some customer Nintendo stuff).
    >They might be making things a little bit easier and maybe even a bit
    >cheaper, but it's basically just business as usual.
    >
    There is of cause the case of PPC cores in FPGA (Xilinx Virtex IIRC).
    In such a case 'adding' something is a lot easier in a HDL language.
    Then one could think of the possibility such a change was 'ported back'
    to silicon.
    Having not used that PPC core I am only speculating though.
    JP
  5. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:c4k39g$t05$1@news.wplus.net...
    > On a sunny day (Fri, 02 Apr 2004 10:22:58 -0500) it happened Tony Hill
    > <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in
    > <b21r60hkh9sjrqap8f16u87744lk0d3f5e@4ax.com>:
    >
    > >On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 12:39:52 +0200, Grumble <invalid@kma.eu.org>
    > >wrote:
    > >>Black Jack wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> What exactly is this article saying? That IBM is now encouraging
    > >>> other manufacturers to clone and extend its Power chips?
    > >>
    > >>Ars Technica's take:
    > >>http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1080794898.html
    > >
    > >My take on it? Mostly a lot of hot air. I call this one 99%
    > >marketing hype and maybe 1% substance.
    > >
    > >IBM does plan to make it a little easier to license PowerPC cores, but
    > >it's not really going to be "open" at all, you'll still have to pay
    > >IBM to license the cores and IBM still controls the instruction set
    > >and most of the IP.
    > >
    > >Their plan seems to be exactly what they were already doing with
    > >Nintendo and their Gamecube processor (custom PowerPC core, based off
    > >of IBM's 400 series chips but with some customer Nintendo stuff).
    > >They might be making things a little bit easier and maybe even a bit
    > >cheaper, but it's basically just business as usual.
    > >
    > There is of cause the case of PPC cores in FPGA (Xilinx Virtex IIRC).
    > In such a case 'adding' something is a lot easier in a HDL language.
    > Then one could think of the possibility such a change was 'ported back'
    > to silicon.
    > Having not used that PPC core I am only speculating though.
    > JP

    You all can check out http://www-1.ibm.com/technology/power/ where there is
    some kind of "design kit" that is downloadable to play with. I also looked
    at the licensing page, and they have a synthesizable 440 core that it says
    can be taken anywhere. Also that they are porting the hard core to other
    foundries.

    So yes indeed it would seem from the web site that one could take the soft
    core, modify it, and synthesize to the foundry process of your choice using
    the library vendor of your choice. Synopsis and Cadence are mentioned.

    It would be my belief that there probably is some exchange of money involved
    in this licencing but you should check for yourself.

    Looks like all sorts of merriment could ensue. And if you need help, don't
    forget Engineering and Technology Services :-)

    Del Cecchi (personal opinions only)
  6. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <b21r60hkh9sjrqap8f16u87744lk0d3f5e@4ax.com>,
    hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca says...
    > On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 12:39:52 +0200, Grumble <invalid@kma.eu.org>
    > wrote:
    > >Black Jack wrote:
    > >
    > >> What exactly is this article saying? That IBM is now encouraging
    > >> other manufacturers to clone and extend its Power chips?
    > >
    > >Ars Technica's take:
    > >http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1080794898.html
    >
    > My take on it? Mostly a lot of hot air. I call this one 99%
    > marketing hype and maybe 1% substance.

    Could be. It's been done before.
    >
    > IBM does plan to make it a little easier to license PowerPC cores, but
    > it's not really going to be "open" at all, you'll still have to pay
    > IBM to license the cores and IBM still controls the instruction set
    > and most of the IP.

    You think IBM is giving hardware away? Come on Tony! They're
    looking for *business* opportunities. It's really that simple.

    > Their plan seems to be exactly what they were already doing with
    > Nintendo and their Gamecube processor (custom PowerPC core, based off
    > of IBM's 400 series chips but with some customer Nintendo stuff).

    Wrong. The Nintendo Gekko is a 750(FX, IIRC - can't keep the
    chips/marketing straight). It is most certainly not derived from
    the PPC4xx series.

    > They might be making things a little bit easier and maybe even a bit
    > cheaper, but it's basically just business as usual.

    Business is business. What I get out of this is the tools will
    become more freely available. IBM released its compilers for
    PPC970 (for Apple) some time back, I see this as more of the
    same. Think of it this way; some one has figured out that if
    you give the tools away, someone might just build a house with
    your lumber.

    --
    Keith
  7. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <c4k39g$t05$1@news.wplus.net>,
    pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com says...
    > On a sunny day (Fri, 02 Apr 2004 10:22:58 -0500) it happened Tony Hill
    > <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in
    > <b21r60hkh9sjrqap8f16u87744lk0d3f5e@4ax.com>:
    >
    > >On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 12:39:52 +0200, Grumble <invalid@kma.eu.org>
    > >wrote:
    > >>Black Jack wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> What exactly is this article saying? That IBM is now encouraging
    > >>> other manufacturers to clone and extend its Power chips?
    > >>
    > >>Ars Technica's take:
    > >>http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1080794898.html
    > >
    > >My take on it? Mostly a lot of hot air. I call this one 99%
    > >marketing hype and maybe 1% substance.
    > >
    > >IBM does plan to make it a little easier to license PowerPC cores, but
    > >it's not really going to be "open" at all, you'll still have to pay
    > >IBM to license the cores and IBM still controls the instruction set
    > >and most of the IP.
    > >
    > >Their plan seems to be exactly what they were already doing with
    > >Nintendo and their Gamecube processor (custom PowerPC core, based off
    > >of IBM's 400 series chips but with some customer Nintendo stuff).
    > >They might be making things a little bit easier and maybe even a bit
    > >cheaper, but it's basically just business as usual.
    > >
    > There is of cause the case of PPC cores in FPGA (Xilinx Virtex IIRC).
    > In such a case 'adding' something is a lot easier in a HDL language.

    Sure, as long as you haven't a care about performance. ...or
    cost.

    > Then one could think of the possibility such a change was 'ported
    > back' to silicon.

    Hard PPC4xx's are already available in the Xilinx Virtex-3 parts
    (and several PPCs in the larger parts). Certainly if you want to
    do an ASIC the PPC4xx core has been available for some years.

    > Having not used that PPC core I am only speculating though.

    *that*???

    There are many more than one.

    --
    Keith
  8. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <c4j3ok$pq9$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
    Nick Maclaren <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
    >
    >In article <d8bc87ef.0404012215.22c56c56@posting.google.com>,
    >news.yaya.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com (Black Jack) writes:
    >|> What exactly is this article saying? That IBM is now encouraging other
    >|> manufacturers to clone and extend its Power chips?
    >|>
    >|> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=620&e=2&u=/nf/20040401/bs_nf/23584
    >
    >No, but IBM have done that since the start of PowerPC, as did
    >SGI with MIPS and Sun with SPARC (the last even more so). It
    >is an encouragement to design and build supporting chips and
    >systems using the PowerPC.

    Not sure where "even more so" comes from? There are many more MIPS
    licensees, products, and shipments than for SPARC, though SPARC has a
    larger installed base of workstations & servers.
    Jon
    __@/
  9. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <c4l3oa$bdtn1$1@fido.engr.sgi.com>,
    Jon Leech <nospam@oddhack.engr.sgi.com> wrote:
    >In article <c4j3ok$pq9$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
    >Nick Maclaren <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
    >>
    >>In article <d8bc87ef.0404012215.22c56c56@posting.google.com>,
    >>news.yaya.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com (Black Jack) writes:
    >>|> What exactly is this article saying? That IBM is now encouraging other
    >>|> manufacturers to clone and extend its Power chips?
    >>|>
    >>|> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=620&e=2&u=/nf/20040401/bs_nf/23584
    >>
    >>No, but IBM have done that since the start of PowerPC, as did
    >>SGI with MIPS and Sun with SPARC (the last even more so). It
    >>is an encouragement to design and build supporting chips and
    >>systems using the PowerPC.
    >
    > Not sure where "even more so" comes from? There are many more MIPS
    >licensees, products, and shipments than for SPARC, though SPARC has a
    >larger installed base of workstations & servers.

    Sun made the SPARC architecture explicitly free to all users; IBM
    and SGI did not do quite that with PowerPC and MIPS, and it was and
    is legally unclear whether you can build clones (at that level) with
    no form of licence. I believe that the answer is "yes", but only in
    most jurisdictions.

    The Intel x86 scenario was and is very different, and vastly more
    confused.


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On a sunny day (Fri, 2 Apr 2004 21:16:01 -0500) it happened KR Williams
    <krw@att.biz> wrote in <MPG.1ad7e8688f7260729896ee@news1.news.adelphia.net>:

    >In article <c4k39g$t05$1@news.wplus.net>,
    >pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com says...
    >> On a sunny day (Fri, 02 Apr 2004 10:22:58 -0500) it happened Tony Hill
    >> <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in
    >> <b21r60hkh9sjrqap8f16u87744lk0d3f5e@4ax.com>:
    >>
    >> >On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 12:39:52 +0200, Grumble <invalid@kma.eu.org>
    >> >wrote:
    >> >>Black Jack wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >>> What exactly is this article saying? That IBM is now encouraging
    >> >>> other manufacturers to clone and extend its Power chips?
    >> >>
    >> >>Ars Technica's take:
    >> >>http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1080794898.html
    >> >
    >> >My take on it? Mostly a lot of hot air. I call this one 99%
    >> >marketing hype and maybe 1% substance.
    >> >
    >> >IBM does plan to make it a little easier to license PowerPC cores, but
    >> >it's not really going to be "open" at all, you'll still have to pay
    >> >IBM to license the cores and IBM still controls the instruction set
    >> >and most of the IP.
    >> >
    >> >Their plan seems to be exactly what they were already doing with
    >> >Nintendo and their Gamecube processor (custom PowerPC core, based off
    >> >of IBM's 400 series chips but with some customer Nintendo stuff).
    >> >They might be making things a little bit easier and maybe even a bit
    >> >cheaper, but it's basically just business as usual.
    >> >
    >> There is of cause the case of PPC cores in FPGA (Xilinx Virtex IIRC).
    >> In such a case 'adding' something is a lot easier in a HDL language.
    >
    >Sure, as long as you haven't a care about performance. ...or
    >cost.
    >
    >> Then one could think of the possibility such a change was 'ported
    >> back' to silicon.
    >
    >Hard PPC4xx's are already available in the Xilinx Virtex-3 parts
    >(and several PPCs in the larger parts). Certainly if you want to
    >do an ASIC the PPC4xx core has been available for some years.
    >
    >> Having not used that PPC core I am only speculating though.
    >
    >*that*???
    >
    >There are many more than one.
    >
    I went to that IBM site (other reply in thread), and found
    PPC_QRG_2-22-04.pdf.
    Now that is nice stuff, look at the low power it consumes.
    I really did not know that.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    > So yes indeed it would seem from the web site that one could take the soft
    > core,

    What the toolkit seems to offer is a simulation model. No RTL.

    modify it, and synthesize to the foundry process of your choice using
    > the library vendor of your choice. Synopsis and Cadence are mentioned.
    >
    > It would be my belief that there probably is some exchange of money involved
    > in this licencing but you should check for yourself.

    Of course there is. What makes this any more "Open" than ARM/ARC/Tensilica?

    The very fact that you have to license it, means that it isn't "Open".

    Cheers,
    JonB
  12. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Jon Beniston wrote:
    > The very fact that you have to license it, means that it isn't "Open".

    Ah, so all that 'Open Source' software under the GPL and similar
    licenses isn't "open". I can see some merit in that argument, but
    I suspect most Linux folk might disagree.

    mfc
  13. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In comp.arch Mike Cowlishaw <mfcowli@attglobal.net> wrote:
    > Jon Beniston wrote:
    > > The very fact that you have to license it, means that it isn't "Open".
    >
    > Ah, so all that 'Open Source' software under the GPL and similar
    > licenses isn't "open". I can see some merit in that argument, but
    > I suspect most Linux folk might disagree.

    I don't think so - with linux, you get the licence with the materials
    and there is no need to talk to Linus top use it (same with any other
    gpl software and its 'owner'). This is not so with Power and IBM.

    The page doesn't even say 'free of cost and no patent crosslicencing
    deals imposed' or similar. It does not really appear different from
    SCSL that Sun released some of its past processors under some years
    ago.

    >
    > mfc
    >

    --
    Sander

    +++ Out of cheese error +++
  14. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Jon Beniston" <jon@beniston.com> wrote in message
    news:e87b9ce8.0404070145.aee622e@posting.google.com...

    > The very fact that you have to license it, means that it isn't "Open".

    You pretty much have to license everything. Without a license
    requirement, it's very difficult to disclaim liability. Even if you put in
    liability disclaimers, you can't stop others from removing the disclaimers
    and redistributing.

    It's one thing to guarantee that what you developed worked as it is.
    It's quite another thing to be sure it won't have bugs (or things others can
    claim are bugs) that will show up when it's modified. You can then be sued.
    The only way you can say you took reasonable steps to be sure anyone who
    received the code/design/whatever was warned about the need to test its
    suitability for a particular purpose is to put that in a license.

    DS
  15. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Sander Vesik wrote:
    > In comp.arch Mike Cowlishaw <mfcowli@attglobal.net> wrote:
    >> Jon Beniston wrote:
    >>> The very fact that you have to license it, means that it isn't
    >>> "Open".
    >>
    >> Ah, so all that 'Open Source' software under the GPL and similar
    >> licenses isn't "open". I can see some merit in that argument, but
    >> I suspect most Linux folk might disagree.
    >
    > I don't think so - with linux, you get the licence with the materials
    > and there is no need to talk to Linus top use it (same with any other
    > gpl software and its 'owner'). This is not so with Power and IBM.

    Not sure I follow; there's no need for an open source project
    to send out its license with the materials (that's a GPL quirk,
    which mostly seems to keep lawyers employed :-)).

    > The page doesn't even say 'free of cost..'

    > Nor does the typical open source license (though GPL
    > armwaves about patents, allowing patents which are free
    > to all users, but not necessarily without cost).

    mfc
  16. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Mike Cowlishaw <mfcowli@attglobal.net> wrote:
    > Sander Vesik wrote:
    >> I don't think so - with linux, you get the licence with the materials
    >> and there is no need to talk to Linus top use it (same with any other
    >> gpl software and its 'owner'). This is not so with Power and IBM.
    >
    > Not sure I follow; there's no need for an open source project
    > to send out its license with the materials (that's a GPL quirk,

    Actually, there _is_ a need for some sort of licencing
    statement otherwise it isn't Open Source nor Free Software.
    Copyrighted materials cannot be used without some sort of
    permission or licence. Usually, you will see something like
    "Licence granted under GPL 2.0" near the copyright notice.
    Including a copy of the GPL is recommended but not required.

    > which mostly seems to keep lawyers employed :-)).

    Hardly. AFAIK, the GPL has not been litigated, and doesn't
    occupy much lawyers time. Particularly this -- including by
    reference is hardly controversial.

    Sander's point remains valid -- the GPL is a unilaterial
    licence in that unknown persons can use the software without
    needing separate permission, notice or other from the author
    so long as they abide by the GPL terms. They aren't required
    to follow the GPL, but then nothing else gives them any right
    to use the software.

    I don't think this is true of Microsoft's latest licences which
    require you submit certain information (perhaps automated)
    before the product is fully licenced and functional.

    -- Robert
  17. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In comp.arch Mike Cowlishaw <mfcowli@attglobal.net> wrote:
    > Sander Vesik wrote:
    > > In comp.arch Mike Cowlishaw <mfcowli@attglobal.net> wrote:
    > >> Jon Beniston wrote:
    > >>> The very fact that you have to license it, means that it isn't
    > >>> "Open".
    > >>
    > >> Ah, so all that 'Open Source' software under the GPL and similar
    > >> licenses isn't "open". I can see some merit in that argument, but
    > >> I suspect most Linux folk might disagree.
    > >
    > > I don't think so - with linux, you get the licence with the materials
    > > and there is no need to talk to Linus top use it (same with any other
    > > gpl software and its 'owner'). This is not so with Power and IBM.
    >
    > Not sure I follow; there's no need for an open source project
    > to send out its license with the materials (that's a GPL quirk,
    > which mostly seems to keep lawyers employed :-)).

    If there is no licence that spells out the terms under which you can
    distribute it, then you *cannot* distribute it, and thats about
    as far from Open Source as you can get. The licence need not be
    distributed alongside it but there is need for a statement saying what
    teh licence is. Without such you simply cannot copy copyrighted material.

    It does not get any simpler than that.

    >
    > > The page doesn't even say 'free of cost..'
    >
    > > Nor does the typical open source license (though GPL
    > > armwaves about patents, allowing patents which are free
    > > to all users, but not necessarily without cost).

    For a licence to be a open source licence it may in fcat not require any
    payment for licencening or other limitations on distribution of the source
    or resulting 'binaries'. That IBM may have patents that you may need in order
    to legaly implement it anywhere where those patents are valid is completely
    besides the point - not only are there likely to be aspects that can be
    studied and reused without any reference to IBM patents, a licence that
    does not give you a basic set of freedoms simply isn't 'Open'.

    Again, go see the cpu-s Sun is licencning under SCSL (which is not a open
    licence either).

    >
    > mfc
    >
    >

    --
    Sander

    +++ Out of cheese error +++
  18. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Redelmeier wrote:

    > Sander's point remains valid -- the GPL is a unilaterial
    > licence in that unknown persons can use the software without
    > needing separate permission, notice or other from the author
    > so long as they abide by the GPL terms. They aren't required
    > to follow the GPL, but then nothing else gives them any right
    > to use the software.

    Close. Note that copyright is about *copying*, not *use*. The GPL
    allows you to distribute (modified) copies of the Programming Work.

    Just as you can read a copyright book legally obtained from a library,
    you can legally use a copyright program - you just cannot legally (re-)
    distribute it without an additional license.

    --
    Toon Moene - mailto:toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phoneto: +31 346 214290
    Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
    Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
    GNU Fortran 95: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/ (under construction)
  19. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Toon Moene <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> wrote:
    > Close. Note that copyright is about *copying*, not *use*. The GPL
    > allows you to distribute (modified) copies of the Programming Work.
    >
    > Just as you can read a copyright book legally obtained from a library,
    > you can legally use a copyright program - you just cannot legally (re-)
    > distribute it without an additional license.

    Again close :) When you "use" a program, you actually make many
    copies of it -- at least in RAM and usually on the Hard Disk.
    Additional copies in caches, buffers and swap probably count
    as transient.

    The difference isn't entirely trivial, because many people
    can use the single copy that's in RAM. Multiple windows.
    Modern OSes will automatically share codepages.

    I believe there's legislation in the EU to specifically permit
    copying software as necessary for use, but don't believe there's
    anything beyond caselaw in the US.

    -- Robert
  20. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <Gzafc.9112$Kb7.7878@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
    redelm@ev1.net.invalid says...
    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Toon Moene <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> wrote:
    > > Close. Note that copyright is about *copying*, not *use*. The GPL
    > > allows you to distribute (modified) copies of the Programming Work.
    > >
    > > Just as you can read a copyright book legally obtained from a library,
    > > you can legally use a copyright program - you just cannot legally (re-)
    > > distribute it without an additional license.
    >
    > Again close :) When you "use" a program, you actually make many
    > copies of it -- at least in RAM and usually on the Hard Disk.
    > Additional copies in caches, buffers and swap probably count
    > as transient.
    >
    > The difference isn't entirely trivial, because many people
    > can use the single copy that's in RAM. Multiple windows.
    > Modern OSes will automatically share codepages.
    >
    > I believe there's legislation in the EU to specifically permit
    > copying software as necessary for use, but don't believe there's
    > anything beyond caselaw in the US.

    Sure, but consider "OS/2 for Windows" (red spine OS/2). OS/2 would
    load and modify the users Win32 so it could be run as a guest under
    OS/2. This load/modify in RAM (a.k.a. "Ferengi Magic") was a way
    around having a Win license in OS/2. "OS/2 with Windows" (blue spine)
    was also available.

    There are a lot of untested areas in IP law. The laws were written
    with paper-publishing in mind and a lot of issues don't translate well
    into software.

    --
    Keith
  21. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Redelmeier wrote:

    (snip)

    >>Just as you can read a copyright book legally obtained from a library,
    >>you can legally use a copyright program - you just cannot legally (re-)
    >>distribute it without an additional license.

    > Again close :) When you "use" a program, you actually make many
    > copies of it -- at least in RAM and usually on the Hard Disk.
    > Additional copies in caches, buffers and swap probably count
    > as transient.

    So when I am reading a book the copy of the image into my
    brain doesn't count, right?

    Many systems now don't write the EXE file into swap space,
    but instead reload it from the EXE file. They could even do
    that for CD-ROM, such that no copy ever went to disk.

    I believe that the ideas for libraries loaning books were
    considered with copyright laws. I believe Benjamin
    Franklin had was very much interested in libraries.

    -- glen
  22. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
    > So when I am reading a book the copy of the image into my
    > brain doesn't count, right?

    Only if it's very transient :)
    I don't think this has been considered.

    > Many systems now don't write the EXE file into swap space,
    > but instead reload it from the EXE file. They could even do
    > that for CD-ROM, such that no copy ever went to disk.

    Very true. Thanks for the correction.

    > I believe that the ideas for libraries loaning books were
    > considered with copyright laws. I believe Benjamin
    > Franklin had was very much interested in libraries.

    Yes, he was. But originally, there was lots of controversy
    about lending libraries. Publishers thought them wicked and
    tried to argue they didn't seel the book for that purpose.

    -- Robert
  23. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips krw <krw@att.biz> wrote:
    > Sure, but consider "OS/2 for Windows" (red spine OS/2). OS/2 would
    > load and modify the users Win32 so it could be run as a guest under
    > OS/2. This load/modify in RAM (a.k.a. "Ferengi Magic") was a way
    > around having a Win license in OS/2. "OS/2 with Windows" (blue spine)
    > was also available.

    Ah, that brings back memories. Yes, Red spine would load and
    modify other user software. Legally disputable.

    > There are a lot of untested areas in IP law. The laws were written
    > with paper-publishing in mind and a lot of issues don't translate well
    > into software.

    True enough. I think at the time (1992), MS didn't want to
    take on IBM. Now, I think they wouldn't hesitate.

    -- Robert
  24. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <OBhfc.16633$Pk1.3686@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>,
    redelm@ev1.net.invalid says...
    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
    > > So when I am reading a book the copy of the image into my
    > > brain doesn't count, right?
    >
    > Only if it's very transient :)

    Getting up there Robert? ;-)

    > I don't think this has been considered.

    It's "fair use". If you could remember what you read, you would put it
    to "good use". ;-)
    >
    > > Many systems now don't write the EXE file into swap space,
    > > but instead reload it from the EXE file. They could even do
    > > that for CD-ROM, such that no copy ever went to disk.
    >
    > Very true. Thanks for the correction.
    >
    > > I believe that the ideas for libraries loaning books were
    > > considered with copyright laws. I believe Benjamin
    > > Franklin had was very much interested in libraries.
    >
    > Yes, he was. But originally, there was lots of controversy
    > about lending libraries. Publishers thought them wicked and
    > tried to argue they didn't seel the book for that purpose.

    And records, tapes, video tapes, CDs, DVDs... I think the horse is out
    of the barn on that one. Though Hollywood will certainly try to close
    it. Perhaps you'll have to "register" your DVDs and player before you
    can use them. Then you can ask permission to view them on new
    equipment. Hmm, where have I heard this before?

    --
    Keith
  25. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:58:14 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
    <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:

    >In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Toon Moene <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> wrote:
    >> Close. Note that copyright is about *copying*, not *use*. The GPL
    >> allows you to distribute (modified) copies of the Programming Work.
    >>
    >> Just as you can read a copyright book legally obtained from a library,
    >> you can legally use a copyright program - you just cannot legally (re-)
    >> distribute it without an additional license.
    >
    >Again close :) When you "use" a program, you actually make many
    >copies of it -- at least in RAM and usually on the Hard Disk.
    >Additional copies in caches, buffers and swap probably count
    >as transient.
    >
    >The difference isn't entirely trivial, because many people
    >can use the single copy that's in RAM. Multiple windows.
    >Modern OSes will automatically share codepages.

    It may be "modern" to Billy & The Embalmer but single instance shared code
    pages is hardly a new thing. I don't see that kind of stuff being any use
    for multiple users apart from where the software is installed on an
    application server... where there are ways to control it.

    >I believe there's legislation in the EU to specifically permit
    >copying software as necessary for use, but don't believe there's
    >anything beyond caselaw in the US.

    Is this in respect to open source only or shrink wrap stuff? I'd think
    that'd have a hard time making any way with high $$ stuff. Are they going
    to force M$ to ignore the "activation" violations, or oblige the issuance
    of multiple free dongles? You know if the EU is contemplating some new
    ground breaking law, you have to figure, whatever it is, it's the wrong way
    to do things.:-)

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Hardware Open Source IBM Power Intel