OwenBot wrote:
> Can't go into more detail right now but it involves replacing
> distribution restricted routines with open source ones (so you can't
> look at the original code). Just setting up the project at the moment.
> Also, would people prefer to work with CVS or SVN?

I could throw some code your way, always have time for
a bit of Z80 coding. What's CVS/SVN ?

--
JGH

jgharston wrote:
> OwenBot wrote:
>> Can't go into more detail right now but it involves replacing
>> distribution restricted routines with open source ones (so you can't
>> look at the original code). Just setting up the project at the moment.
>> Also, would people prefer to work with CVS or SVN?
>
> I could throw some code your way, always have time for
> a bit of Z80 coding. What's CVS/SVN ?

"Concurrent versioning system" and "subversion".
Used for checking in and out sourcecode changes so that many people can
contribute to a project at once. There's also RCS (more primitive) and git
(developed by linus for kernel development)
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |

OwenBot wrote:
> Can't go into more detail right now but it involves replacing
> distribution restricted routines with open source ones (so you can't
> look at the original code). Just setting up the project at the moment.
> Also, would people prefer to work with CVS or SVN?

I'm not really up for taking on any new projects myself (and if this is
what I think it is, my involvement on a similar project is already well
established...) but I might as well stick my oar in and say that if the
choice is between CVS or SVN, then there is - as far as I know - no
reason whatsoever to choose CVS, because SVN was basically designed to
be a direct replacement for CVS that sucks less.

If someone muddies the waters by asking for Git or GNU Arch or
something, that's a different matter...

On Jul 23, 1:01*am, Matthew Westcott wrote:

> I'm not really up for taking on any new projects myself (and if this is
> what I think it is, my involvement on a similar project is already well
> established...)

Yes it is what you think it is, and it's probably going to help your
project out an awful lot because I've just secured the rights to use
an awful lot of existing code from the two machines that are most
closely related to the target platform. As I see it the aim of your
project is different from mine (I've PMed you on WoS about this) so
there's no reason for a merge. However, I will be using code from your
project in my project, and I hope you will be able to use a lot of
code from my project in yours.

> but I might as well stick my oar in and say that if the
> choice is between CVS or SVN, then there is - as far as I know - no
> reason whatsoever to choose CVS, because SVN was basically designed to
> be a direct replacement for CVS that sucks less.

SVN it is then. I'll set up a sourceforge project as soon as the
preliminary work is finished.

@JGH

Great, I was hoping to use some code you've already written in any
case. Drop me an email and I'll give you the details.

Cheers!

OwenBot wrote:
> Yes it is what you think it is, and it's probably going to help your
> project out an awful lot because I've just secured the rights to use
> an awful lot of existing code from the two machines that are most
> closely related to the target platform.

Why are you being to slippery about this?
If you want people to join in, wouldn't it be an idea to say explicitely
what the project IS. What the PLATFORM in question is'd help for that
matter. Why all the cryptic clues aimed only at the one person who'll know
what you're on about anyway?

You could've done THAT by e-mail.
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |

On Jul 24, 11:26*am, Andrew Halliwell wrote:

> Why are you being to slippery about this?

Fair question. I just wanted to tie up a few loose ends before going
public.

> If you want people to join in, wouldn't it be an idea to say explicitely
> what the project IS. What the PLATFORM in question is'd help for that
> matter.

The project is called Open82. It is a fully open source version of
Sinclair BASIC for use with ZX Spectrum compatible hardware. It will
be published under the GNU GPL. It addresses the two issues with the
Amstrad distribution permissions for the original ROM:

1) it cannot be included in Debian packages
2) it cannot be used in hardware projects

The reason for being cryptic was that while permission had been given
for what I wanted to do I hadn't been given it directly and I wanted
to wait until the relevant people had replied to my emails. Now I can
explain.

The project takes the ZX81 ROM as the starting point and extends it to
support the ZX Spectrum hardware based on the functional information
from the Complete Spectrum ROM Disassembly (but not the Amstrad
copyright code). To avoid having to write a lot of it from
scratch, routines are also borrowed from the ZX80, SAM Coupe and the
unreleased 1.0 beta of SE Basic (which reuses code from the Sea Change
and Gosh Wonderful ROMs). This is done with the explicit permission of
the copyright owners, except in the case of Geoff Wearmouth's code.
However, he gave permission for its use in SE Basic and SE Basic was
distributed with an open source license so there are no legal issues
in reusing it in Open82.

The Open82 assembly will generate a 16K ROM. However, unlike the
original, a method will be included for extending BASIC via another
ROM, although the paging method will not be specified. This should
enable the easy adaption of the Open82 ROM for use with various
hardware projects such as the Spectranet ethernet project.

The Open82 project is distinct from the OpenZXRom project in that
Open82 aims to implement a full version of Sinclair BASIC without
concern for compatibility, whereas the OpenZXRom aims to run as much
software as possible. In fact the two projects complement each other
as the OpenZXRom can be loaded into RAM paged into the ROM area in
order to load any software that doesn't work 'out-of-the-box' with
Open82.

> > a bit of Z80 coding. What's CVS/SVN ?
> contribute to a project at once. There's also RCS (more primitive)

Oh, I remember that. Will email you when I get home.

--
JGH

On 24 Jul, 12:34, OwenBot wrote:
> In fact the two projects complement each other
> as the OpenZXRom can be loaded into RAM paged into the ROM area in
> order to load any software that doesn't work 'out-of-the-box' with
> Open82.

It sounds like I might be better off with Matthew's OpenZXRom for now,
although you have started work on the open source Open82.

On 24 Jul, 12:34, OwenBot wrote:
> To avoid having to write a lot of it from
> scratch, routines are also borrowed from the ZX80, SAM Coupe and the
> unreleased 1.0 beta of SE Basic (which reuses code from the Sea Change
> and Gosh Wonderful ROMs). This is done with the explicit permission of
> the copyright owners, except in the case of Geoff Wearmouth's code.
> However, he gave permission for its use in SE Basic and SE Basic was
> distributed with an open source license so there are no legal issues
> in reusing it in Open82.

Eeek!

Yes I remember that. It happened right here in css.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com...d3e4c4a48cb10b
The exchange went something like
"Can I pinch it?"
"Yes"
"Maybe I'll stick with 'mine' - it's better"

Had I known that you would take the entire source file, remove my name
and add your own and call it SE Basic to coincide with the review of
SE Basic by Trinity Mirror then I would have hesitated. Your habit of
using other people's hard work without accreditation was already
causing me concern that I quoted some advice on the subject in my
first reply.

He [SV - for it is he] warns his students -
"The last part, is an important part of the exercise! If you quote a
web
page without saying where the page is, that can sometimes be
plagiarism
- passing off somebody else's work as your own -, which is a serious
offence academically. So we want you to get used to this idea."

You asked me last month if I would allow you to donate my old renumber
routine to the OpenZXRom project. As an admirer of Matthew's work I
was a little confused. I now see that you had something completely
different in mind.

"OwenBot" wrote:

> To avoid having to write a lot of it from scratch, routines are also
> borrowed from the ZX80 [and] SAM Coupe

Surely those ROMs have the same problem of copyright, don't they?

Eq.

This has gone on long enough. I demand an apology.

> Had I known that you would take the entire source file, remove my name
> and add your own and call it SE Basic to coincide with the review of
> SE Basic by Trinity Mirror then I would have hesitated.

I did no such thing. I had no involvement in the article. I removed
the offending source file at your request.

> Your habit of
> using other people's hard work without accreditation was already
> causing me concern that I quoted some advice on the subject in my
> first reply.

I have never used other people's work without accreditation. If you
persist in repeating this unfounded allegation I will be taking legal
advice.

> You asked me last month if I would allow you to donate my old renumber
> routine to the OpenZXRom project. As an admirer of Matthew's work I
> was a little confused. I now see that you had something completely
> different in mind.

I did not. That was before I had spoken to John Grant and Andrew
Wright. If you do not wish me to reuse your code then I will respect
your wishes. It will set back the Open82 project, but if it saves me
having to put up with personal attacks then so be it.

On Jul 27, 11:56*pm, "Paul E Collins"
wrote:
> "OwenBot" wrote:
> > To avoid having to write a lot of it from scratch, routines are also
> > borrowed from the ZX80 [and] SAM Coupe
>
> Surely those ROMs have the same problem of copyright, don't they?

John Grant and Andrew Wright have given me permission to re-use their
code and publish under the GNU GPL, at which point Matthew and anyone
else who wants to can re-use the code.

On 28 Jul, 11:18, OwenBot wrote:
> This has gone on long enough. I demand an apology.

Apologize to a Robot. Is this a Turing Test?

> I did no such thing. I had no involvement in the article. I removed
> the offending source file at your request.

I did not request the removal of the SE Basic 0.94 source.
Check out Google. It is no longer on WOS but I made a copy.

http://gwearmouth.googlepages.com/source.txt

> I have never used other people's work without accreditation. If you
> persist in repeating this unfounded allegation I will be taking legal
> advice.

Geoff Wearmouth wrote:
> On 28 Jul, 11:18, OwenBot wrote:
>> This has gone on long enough. I demand an apology.
>
> Apologize to a Robot. Is this a Turing Test?
>
>> I did no such thing. I had no involvement in the article. I removed
>> the offending source file at your request.
>
> I did not request the removal of the SE Basic 0.94 source.
> Check out Google. It is no longer on WOS but I made a copy.
>
> http://gwearmouth.googlepages.com/source.txt
>
>> I have never used other people's work without accreditation. If you
>> persist in repeating this unfounded allegation I will be taking legal
>> advice.
>

It does look like you did, looking at that file. "Modified by andrew owen"
No other names present. That's naughty. You acknowledge that it's not soley
your work with the "modified by" bit, but don't actually credit anyone else
in the file.
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spike1@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc |Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|

Andrew Halliwell wrote:

> Geoff Wearmouth wrote:
> > On 28 Jul, 11:18, OwenBot wrote:
> >> This has gone on long enough. I demand an apology.
> >
> > Apologize to a Robot. Is this a Turing Test?
> >
> >> I did no such thing. I had no involvement in the article. I removed
> >> the offending source file at your request.
> >
> > I did not request the removal of the SE Basic 0.94 source.
> > Check out Google. It is no longer on WOS but I made a copy.
> >
> > http://gwearmouth.googlepages.com/source.txt
> >
> >> I have never used other people's work without accreditation. If you
> >> persist in repeating this unfounded allegation I will be taking
> legal >> advice.
> >
>
> It does look like you did, looking at that file. "Modified by andrew
> owen" No other names present. That's naughty. You acknowledge that
> it's not soley your work with the "modified by" bit, but don't
> actually credit anyone else in the file.

I have to concur. I have to say that Geoff, who I've communicated with
many times in email an usenet (albeit not using my current silly
pseudonym) and who's always seemed like a genuinely laid-back and
froody sort of a chap to me, is owed some form of apology.

We shouldn't really be bickering over this stuff; it's of interest to a
tiny, tiny minority of the universe and not remotely significant in the
grand scheme of things. But failing to attribute someone's many hours
of painstaking work to them is clearly not in the spirit of things, and
not the way to encourage future innovation. Credit where it's due and
all that...
--
Slower Than You

On Jul 29, 1:35*am, Andrew Halliwell wrote:

> It does look like you did, looking at that file. "Modified by andrew owen"
> No other names present. That's naughty. You acknowledge that it's not soley
> your work with the "modified by" bit, but don't actually credit anyone else
> in the file.

Yes it does look like that if you don't look at the separate author
file. The modification referred to is the fact that it was Geoff's
assembly listing that was modified. I wasn't trying to take credit for
the code. And while it's true Geoff didn't specifically ask me to take
down the file, he did express concern over the comments, which were
partly his and partly from the Complete Spectrum ROM Disassembly
(since Geoff's assembly is not quite complete). Frankly the file I
posted is a mess and I shouldn't have posted it in that condition. I
want to stress again --- this was a Beta. Yes, I should have posted
the author file at the same time. It was an oversight. I apologize.

I would request that Geoff remove the file as well since the authors
are not credited in it, but since I'm can't claim any ownership of it
I don't have any right to.

On Jul 29, 3:24*am, "Slower Than You" wrote:

> I have to concur. I have to say that Geoff, who I've communicated with
> many times in email an usenet (albeit not using my current silly
> pseudonym) and who's always seemed like a genuinely laid-back and
> froody sort of a chap to me, is owed some form of apology.

He's not the one being defamed. I unreservedly apologize to Geoff for
any distress he has suffered as a result of my action or inaction. But
I want to be very clear that I never intended to take undue credit for
other people's work. I'm human. I make mistakes. I've learned my
lesson -- I don't do public betas any more.

OwenBot wrote:

> I've learned my
> lesson -- I don't do public betas any more.

I don't think the lesson was "don't do public betas". I think the
lesson was "don't release someone else's code with minor cosmetic
changes without making it clear who actually did the bulk of the work".
--
Slower Than You

On Jul 30, 2:24*am, "Slower Than You" wrote:
> OwenBot wrote:
> > I've learned my
> > lesson -- I don't do public betas any more.
>
> I don't think the lesson was "don't do public betas". I think the
> lesson was "don't release someone else's code with minor cosmetic
> changes without making it clear who actually did the bulk of the work".

A beta, by its very nature, is an unpolished thing. That includes the
documentation. You can think what you like, but since no-one seems
willing to give me the benefit of the doubt I have nothing further to
add.