There seems to be a bug in the string compare function. If either string is empty the function return 0 meaning success.
An IRC Bot in Arm Assembler
41–50 of 52 posts
Re: An IRC Bot in Arm Assembler
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
FAQ #7: >> Can’t you change the wording? It’s inappropriate / childish / not corporate-compliant. > > The WTFPL lets you relicense the work under any other license. Also, see FAQ #6 and #8. [0]: http://www.wtfpl.net/faq/
What stops me from re-licencing under my company's proprietary license, then suing the original author for copyright? (It appears this "license" allows implicit re-assignment of copyright). Not to mention, this "license" was not written by a lawyer, but rather a software developer. I'm no lawyer, and I'm confident any license I can make up would be shredded by real lawyers. Furthermore -- the codebase in question abo…
The author can just do what the fuck he wants to, too.
Re: An IRC Bot in Arm Assembler
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh my god, it would be so cool if you could boot to this. Raspberry Pi irc bot. Literally.
He uses Linux sys calls, which means the kernel needs to be there (and a libc of some sorts)... but that's all that's needed. So, with the RPi, you could essentially "boot" this code with pretty much a bare-metal system otherwise.
Is Linux considered part of the machine itself now? Jesus.
Re: An IRC Bot in Arm Assembler
#44Assembly used to be all the rage. At Uni I couldn't afford a C compiler (and there were no free versions for my platform, RISC OS) so I ended up writing a whole IRC Client, GUI and scripting language all in ARM assembler. A few tattered notes of it at: http://xania.org/200711/irbasic but sadly most is lost to time.
I used to follow with joy of a kid that gets new toys, the release of each new processor and the new set of available opcodes.
Nowadays even C++ is simple, compared to mastering all the opcodes and their side effects in latest generation processors.
Re: An IRC Bot in Arm Assembler
#45Last time I looked, the canonical manuals for the ARM architecture were quite expensive. If anyone has advice on piecing the basics together please let me know. I don't know much assembly, am currently playing with 6502 assembly, and have been writing a 32-bit VM just by working it out as I go.
I do have a set of reference manuals, opportunity purchase, for acorn-era ARM systems. What sort of consistency would I find between historic ARM instruction set and the latest 32 and 64 bit versions?
Re: An IRC Bot in Arm Assembler
#46Last time I looked, the canonical manuals for the ARM architecture were quite expensive. If anyone has advice on piecing the basics together please let me know. I don't know much assembly, am currently playing with 6502 assembly, and have been writing a 32-bit VM just by working it out as I go. I do have a set of reference manuals, opportunity purchase, for acorn-era ARM systems. What sort of consistency would I find…
"ARM Architecture Reference Manual" yields quite a few hits for various ARM systems, including ARMv8; the Raspberry Pi's ARMv6 instruction set is also available.
One big change is that modern ARM processors tend to run mostly in Thumb (16-bit instruction) mode. It's faster, but you lose all the fun condition codes. High-performance code should take advantage of NEON.
If the above does not answer your question, please ask a more specific one. ;-)
Re: An IRC Bot in Arm Assembler
#47If you think this is cool, go ahead and check out bfb, an IRC bot written in a derivative of Brainfuck. https://github.com/billiob/bfb
The license the author of the BrainFuck example has chosen (or made up) actually is pretty restrictive, if not immature. Software licensing is not a joke. The author's account on Github seems to have many projects were a license has been either made up, or adapted. Perhaps out of lack of understanding current licensing and available licenses. They could check this site out for some help: https://tldrlegal.com/ If the…
[deleted]
Re: An IRC Bot in Arm Assembler
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Glad to have you part of the discussion. I'm not discussing your repos, but rather the license choice. You appear to have forgotten to add the "No Warranty" clause to the repo's you use the WTFPL on. This implicitly means your code is fit for use, and if it crashes my system, you are liable (and, more importantly, you accept liability). I wouldn't need you to re-license under BSD since the WTFPL allows me to do this…
The WTFPL allows me to re-assign copyright to myself Under which jurisdiction? Can you back that claim up?
>> Can...
> Yes!
So the WTFPL states that the copy, the distribution or the modification are subject to whatever you want to do to them. Therefore you can relicense or possibly† transfer copyright of your copy. The original is still owned by the author and is still licensed under the WTFPL. Yes, those are the same bits, even possibly traceable to the same origin. Only their Color changed[0].
† barring lawful statements that mandate copyright transfer to be explicit.
Re: An IRC Bot in Arm Assembler
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
The WTFPL allows me to re-assign copyright to myself Under which jurisdiction? Can you back that claim up?
>> Can... > Yes! The terms and conditions apply to copying, distribution and modification, wherein you can do what the fuck you want to. So the WTFPL states that the copy, the distribution or the modification are subject to whatever you want to do to them. Therefore you can relicense or possibly† transfer copyright of your copy . The original is still owned by the author and is still licensed under the WTFPL. Yes, th…
Copyright is something the comes with ownership and is what author of a work normally has; and copyright is what gives him exclusive rights with regards to copying, distributing, modifying, performing, etc. Note that copyright itself is not one of these exclusive rights granted by copyright! That would be circular.
So when you place a license on your work, you are just granting people these rights which would normally be exclusive to you as the owner, granted to her by copyright. Again: copyright is not one of these exclusive rights, copyright is property the author owns. When people receive a copy, they do not receive ownership or copyright.[2] They receive a physical copy of a work but the "intellectual property" is still held by the author. At no point was it transferred. And you cannot on your own claim and transfer the author's ownership of the property any more than you can take his home or car or wife. What you can do (as the license permits) is to practice these rights such as copying, performance, etc. which are normally exclusive to the owner.
Re-assigning or transferring copyright (in the sense that you become the owner and can sue the original author as Alupis intended) quite literally means transferring one's property to someone else. If the author of a work transfers his copyright, he no longer owns the work. It gets a new owner, just like your car would do if you gave it to someone else. Transfer of copyright is not at all the same as granting other people the same rights you have. In the US, such exclusive transfer of copyright cannot happen without black-on-white and the signature of the owner:
[1]
Any or all of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights or any subdivision of those rights may be transferred, but the transfer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent.
[2]
Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy or phonorecord does not give the possessor the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a protected work does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright.
[1][2] http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf
EDIT: Furthermore, under the Berne Convention, original authors have the moral right to be known as the author. This right is inalienable: you can't give it away, and it cannot be taken away; you have that right even after everything else (i.e. the economic rights) is exclusively transferred to someone else. I think that makes Alupis' idea of claiming someone's code as his own work illegal.
So, in short, no, you can't re-assign copyright to yourself and then sue the original author for copyright infringement. No, you cannot claim to be the original author and to own the work. No, you do not become the owner of the work when you receive a copy along with a license that allows you to further copy, modify, distribute, perform, etc.
Re: An IRC Bot in Arm Assembler
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
What stops me from re-licencing under my company's proprietary license, then suing the original author for copyright? (It appears this "license" allows implicit re-assignment of copyright). Not to mention, this "license" was not written by a lawyer, but rather a software developer. I'm no lawyer, and I'm confident any license I can make up would be shredded by real lawyers. Furthermore -- the codebase in question abo…
Relicensing is a weird term and easily leads to confusion. I guess you can write your own terms and distribute copies under these new terms. But you cannot revoke the rights the original license has granted to people who have received the work under that license. Nor can you revoke the original author's exclusive rights. The license text (which is about the copying and performing of the covered work ) does not grant…
A license is a permission granted by the author, and an extension of the authors wishes.
This is why relicensing as a term indeed leads to confusion. People think the license is inherently a part of the work, and thus can be as readily changed as the software source itself. It is however not part of the work, but part of the author. If you want to change the license, you need to get the author to change his mind.
Some licenses allow people to add new licenses on-top of existing licenses. That is not re-licensing, but simply the addition of more requirements. If you remove the original license, you loose the permission needed to use/copy the work created by the original author.