Lpc2000

My original thought was that this would help IAR more than anything, 
but I suppose there are some that could argue either way.  I think I 
will just keep the files to myself unless IAR gives me permission.  
Until then, just ask them yourselves.  I'm just about finished with 
the iolpc2103.h file, but that has copyrighted material in it so 
I'll hold off on that as well.

Andy

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "brendanmurphy37" 
<brendan.murphy@i...> wrote:
>
> 
> Tom,
> 
> I'm inclined to agree with Paul and just bow out of this 
discussion, 
> which is going nowhere and is certainly off-topic.
> 
> However, before doing this, I would point out that you can't 
> copyright an algorithm.
> 
> Common practice, and I see nothing wrong with it despite your 
> objection, is to copyright all source code that is created within 
an 
> organisation. If it's a straight copy of something else, that's 
> something else. From what Paul says, it sounds like what he's done 
is 
> a long way from a straight copy (unless I missed the XML addendum 
to 
> the Philips documantation, that is)
> 
> Brendan
> 
> 
> --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Tom Walsh <tom@o...> wrote:
> >
> > brendanmurphy37 wrote:
> > 
> > >I agree: most commercial companies (and certainly most large 
> > >companies) more or less have to operate on this basis (i.e. 
> copyright 
> > >everything they do).
> > >
> > >Don't forget that just because something is copyright doesn't 
mean 
> to 
> > >say it can't be freely distributed under whatever terms the 
> company 
> > >or organisation chooses.
> > >
> > >I have to say, I'd be a bit concerned if someone was 
distributing 
> > >copyright material without explicit permission from the owner, 
> > >regardless of how trivial it might seem. The alternative is an 
> > >interesting take on the law (i.e. "I'll ignore it if I think it 
> > >trivial").
> > >
> > >As you point out, Paul, someone put the effort into creating 
the 
> work 
> > >in the first place. If they want to distribute it freely (and 
as 
> you 
> > >point out, there's plenty of cases where they'd be mad to do 
> > >otherwise), that's fine. However, I'd certainly check before 
> offering 
> > >somone else's work around first (I'm not implying this wasn't 
done 
> in 
> > >this case, by the way: just making a general observation).
> > >
> > >Brendan
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > By Paul's reasoning, if you took the source to an application 
and 
> handed 
> > it to someone to retype, then you "own" the copyright to that 
> work!  
> > That is what I'm saying.  So, taking a PDF, XML, or marking on 
mud 
> > tablets, rewriting it in your own style does not make that an 
> original 
> > work.  It is merely transcription.
> > 
> > I admit, this is a very sore point with me.  People who claim 
> copyright 
> > over trivial, or commonly known algorithms are doing everyone a 
dis-
> service.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > TomW
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant
> > http://openhardware.net, http://cyberiansoftware.com
> > "Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..."
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> >
>