Consider a hardware ie. PIC
If we consider it, every one should initialize it in the same way.
so if I found the code for that from some where and If I put in to
my OS does it mean STEALING.
stealing or something else.
-
ASHLEY4
RE:stealing or something else.
If no one see your code, Like what MS does, You have not stolen it 
.
ASHLEY4.
.ASHLEY4.
-
GT
RE:stealing or something else.
If the author did not grant you permission to do so, yes. OTOH, how hard can it be to find either public domain or BSD-licensed PIC programming code? Check the NetBSD sources. Grab the code. Include a notice at the top of the source file stating where you grabbed the code from. Say thanks while you're at it, and sleep well...
-
Anton
RE:stealing or something else.
Well if you blindly cut and past it then yes.
On the other hand i have several thoughts about this matter
1)But if you unserstood it, added your own comments(removing or changing the originals), changed the syntex(add blank lines or removed them, sepperated everything in to there own functions or clubbered everything together in one function), "improved"(simplifyed) the code, addapted it to your own os, then you can consider that it is your own property.
2) As far as i know you can pattent something intellectual, which means that the only reason that certain code that initialized the PIC can be patented if it is implemented not strait forward, but in a neat way. For instance it takes up the least intructions(the code is written very compact), considers all in some sence configurations(like enabling the a20 on notebooks)...
Anton.
PS. But why bother about this, i think it is much better not only from the point of view of property, but from the point of view if history of your os, to write a note, where the code originated from, even if you changed it alot.(It might help you when you will be proofreading your code)
On the other hand i have several thoughts about this matter
1)But if you unserstood it, added your own comments(removing or changing the originals), changed the syntex(add blank lines or removed them, sepperated everything in to there own functions or clubbered everything together in one function), "improved"(simplifyed) the code, addapted it to your own os, then you can consider that it is your own property.
2) As far as i know you can pattent something intellectual, which means that the only reason that certain code that initialized the PIC can be patented if it is implemented not strait forward, but in a neat way. For instance it takes up the least intructions(the code is written very compact), considers all in some sence configurations(like enabling the a20 on notebooks)...
Anton.
PS. But why bother about this, i think it is much better not only from the point of view of property, but from the point of view if history of your os, to write a note, where the code originated from, even if you changed it alot.(It might help you when you will be proofreading your code)
-
ASHLEY4
RE:stealing or something else.
Who owns the patent on, the "hello world" code ?.
ASHLEY4.
ASHLEY4.
-
relunae
RE:stealing or something else.
Much of what has been said in response to the original question here has been wrong, IMHO. I'm not a lawyer, so don't take what I say a legal advice, however I think someone needs to correct some of what has been said.
The best way to know if you are stealing someone else's code is to read the license agreement. It should tell you exactly how you can use it. If it does not, you will have to contact the author for additional clarification. In respone to what anton said, no matter how much you modify, undertand, or adapt a peice of code, you cannot claim it as your own property. Such code is considered a derivative work, and as such the original author still has rights over it. If they did not authorize the creation of derivative works, any such code is illegal.
Code for simple tasks, such as initializing the A20 gate, will often be very similar. Copyright does not protect code against identical implementations unless it can be proven that an implementation is copied or otherwise derived from another. This would be very difficult to do for a block of code that is less than a dozen lines. Even if your code for enabling the A20 line matches someone else's exactly, it is still legal if you did not use their code to create your without authorization. So just be honest, don't claim to have written code you did not write (no matter how much you have changed it), and honor the license agreements in code which the author has generously made open source, giving credit where credit is due.
The best way to know if you are stealing someone else's code is to read the license agreement. It should tell you exactly how you can use it. If it does not, you will have to contact the author for additional clarification. In respone to what anton said, no matter how much you modify, undertand, or adapt a peice of code, you cannot claim it as your own property. Such code is considered a derivative work, and as such the original author still has rights over it. If they did not authorize the creation of derivative works, any such code is illegal.
Code for simple tasks, such as initializing the A20 gate, will often be very similar. Copyright does not protect code against identical implementations unless it can be proven that an implementation is copied or otherwise derived from another. This would be very difficult to do for a block of code that is less than a dozen lines. Even if your code for enabling the A20 line matches someone else's exactly, it is still legal if you did not use their code to create your without authorization. So just be honest, don't claim to have written code you did not write (no matter how much you have changed it), and honor the license agreements in code which the author has generously made open source, giving credit where credit is due.
-
Anton
RE:stealing or something else.
What i am saying is also IMHO(i am not a layer).
The original question (As far as i understood)was not about any code, but about code like for initing interrupt controller. So, if the algorithm is not patented(and it is not for things like initing the interrupt controller) you can consider the code as your own if you midified it. If someone will rewrite someone else's book it becomes his property. The only thing that the original athour can do i sue for plageism(the same idea in the book) not for the copying the book. The same with the code, if the algorithm is not patented, then you can use the code if you modify it.(This is true not only for the code, but for the comments as well). And as far as i know hardware specific thigs are not patented(if the documentation for them is open). And i can't image how can you copy and paste some code without changing a bit int it. You would at least need to adapt it to the compilers in use.
Consider this:1)You take some one elses code and improve it alot(alot of bugs where fixed). Or say, you put evrything in to classes(from C to C++). Do you consider that code the property of the person who did it.
2) What if the code was not "copied", but was read, understood. And when you were writing your own code, it so happed that your code and the original matches very closly. Is this considered steeling? What happedned in reality is that you first learned(improved you skills, knowledge) and then you implement something and ofcourse it will resemble in some sense the code that you read. No wonder this is called learning.
So, if you just copy it(and i repeat again that it does not contain any patented algorithm or some "tricks") and adapt the code to your use, you can consider it as your code, but this does not mean that I am saying that this is the way to do it. Ofcourse not, like i said, I would put some notice where the code originated from(So that at least i could check the code, if some problems occur), but this does not mean that this is not your property.
Anton
The original question (As far as i understood)was not about any code, but about code like for initing interrupt controller. So, if the algorithm is not patented(and it is not for things like initing the interrupt controller) you can consider the code as your own if you midified it. If someone will rewrite someone else's book it becomes his property. The only thing that the original athour can do i sue for plageism(the same idea in the book) not for the copying the book. The same with the code, if the algorithm is not patented, then you can use the code if you modify it.(This is true not only for the code, but for the comments as well). And as far as i know hardware specific thigs are not patented(if the documentation for them is open). And i can't image how can you copy and paste some code without changing a bit int it. You would at least need to adapt it to the compilers in use.
Consider this:1)You take some one elses code and improve it alot(alot of bugs where fixed). Or say, you put evrything in to classes(from C to C++). Do you consider that code the property of the person who did it.
2) What if the code was not "copied", but was read, understood. And when you were writing your own code, it so happed that your code and the original matches very closly. Is this considered steeling? What happedned in reality is that you first learned(improved you skills, knowledge) and then you implement something and ofcourse it will resemble in some sense the code that you read. No wonder this is called learning.
So, if you just copy it(and i repeat again that it does not contain any patented algorithm or some "tricks") and adapt the code to your use, you can consider it as your code, but this does not mean that I am saying that this is the way to do it. Ofcourse not, like i said, I would put some notice where the code originated from(So that at least i could check the code, if some problems occur), but this does not mean that this is not your property.
Anton