Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 8, 2018, at 7:40 PM, Steve Thompson <ste...@copper.net> wrote: > > My understanding of US Copyright law is a bit different that yours. But, I'm > not an attorney and I certainly haven't stayed at a H/I Express. > > If M/F in acquiring Borland also by that purchase obtained the copyrights and > other IP, then I seriously doubt that this is in the public domain. Which is > why I asked them and am waiting for a response. > > However, if Len Dorfman wrote this and was paid royalties by Borland, then > Len still owns this (as opposed to Borland buying the "copyright"). > > Be careful in asserting that something has gone into the public domain in the > area of copyright. You could get burned. > > I have some interest in copyrights because of IP owned by my family. And to > my knowledge the renewal of copyright was changed in the '60s to no longer > needing to formally renew it. This is how certain music passed into the > public domain because it expired before anyone realized that they still had > to do a renewal to pass into the no renewals "zone", and copyright became the > life of the author plus some number of years depending on how famous the > author was (hence the nick-name for this law as the Mickey-Mouse law -- this > was pursued by "Disney" to protect, you got it, Mickey Mouse and the rest). > > Regards, > Steve Thompson > >> On 02/08/2018 06:09 PM, Paul Raulerson wrote: >> Hi Steve - >> Borland, 1990, USA, and as far as I can tell, the copyright was not renewed >> after the product was abandoned. Copyright law in 1990 was still somewhat >> sane... >> I am not a copyright lawyer though, so caveat emptor! >> Typos courtesy of my iPhone and my fat fingers! >>> On Feb 8, 2018, at 16:56, Steve Thompson <ste...@copper.net> wrote: >>> >>> I must challenge your statement about the copyright's expiration, or did >>> the author put it in the public domain? >>> >>> In what country was it originally copyrighted? >>> >>> Has the author been dead more than 20 years? [and that death date may be >>> different for the item to pass into the public domain as in the USofA the >>> Mickey Mouse law keeps getting the date shoved further and further into the >>> future.] >>> >>> Regards, >>> Steve Thompson >>> >>> On 02/08/2018 05:24 PM, Paul Raulerson wrote: >>>>> On Feb 8, 2018, at 4:22 PM, Paul Raulerson <paul.rauler...@me.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> How about the? Object Oriented ASSEMBLER LANGUAGE - from 1990. (grin) >>>>> Not HLASM, but a fun read for language historians, amateur or otherwise! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The manual is out of copyright, and the entire book is available over at >>>>> Bitsavers, if anyone would like to read it. I reproduced a few pages here >>>>> to whet your appetites. :) >>>>> >>>>> Chapter 4 is the most interesting part to me, and provides an interesting >>>>> take on the subject I think. Caveat, I never used the OO parts of this >>>>> assembler, mostly because it just looked like “too much trouble.” I >>>>> wish I had taken more time to study it back then. In any event… enjoy! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/borland/turbo_assembler/Turbo_Assembler_Version_5_Users_Guide.pdf >>>>> >>>>> <http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/borland/turbo_assembler/Turbo_Assembler_Version_5_Users_Guide.pdf> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -Paul >>>>> >>>>> <page52image3841408.png> >>>>> >>>>> <page53image3840736.png> >>>>> >>>>> <page54image3827296.png> >>>>> >>>>> <page55image3807136.png> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 8, 2018, at 1:36 PM, Seymour J Metz <sme...@gmu.edu >>>>>> <mailto:sme...@gmu.edu>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I can get down and dirty with machine code, but my standard coding >>>>>> practice is to use lots of macros to automate repetitive tasks, >>>>>> sometimes with different code paths depending on the target processor. >>>>>> >>>>>> As to library overhead, I've certainly written code design to fir well >>>>>> in a PL/I environment and never found the overhead to be unreasonable. >>>>>> And, yes, there is other code where I sweat every cycle, but that's the >>>>>> exception. >>>>>> >>>>>> I can't see using the full OO paradigm in HLASM, but I've certainly seen >>>>>> implementation of parts of it in assembler code. >>>>>> >>>>>> That "definition" isn't a definition, it's simply a list of purport6ed >>>>>> benefits. There are theological arguments about the one true definition, >>>>>> but there is a broad consensus that it includes classes, methods, >>>>>> objects, messages and inheritance. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz >>>>>> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 <http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3> >>>>>> >>>>>
