John I send my posting to Mrs. Stoll for approval prior to posting. Lets try not to start the usual arguments. Brooks deserves better. Bert Kehren In a message dated 12/21/2012 4:28:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
And folks, please respect Brooks' privacy -- remember that this list is archived in many places on the web. John ---- paul swed said the following on 12/21/2012 04:06 PM: > Kind of defocusing here. I think the thread is about possibly helping to > release the shera v4.02 software. Several folks appear to be local to > Brooks wife and may be able to help her recover information she may need in > general and if we are lucky allow the software to be at least gathered. > Regards > Paul > WB8TSL > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 3:30 PM, David Kirkby <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On 21 December 2012 18:11, Chris Albertson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> I think whatthis says is that if you've worked hard to make a design >>> available to others and you don't intend to sell it commercially, >>> PUBLISH the details, the design files and the source code. Yes I >>> kknow it is never "good enough" for others to see. But in reality it >>> is likely better than what 99.9% of others can do. >> >> I agree if you don't want to sell it, then make it public, even if it >> is not "finished" >> >> That said, some of the **** code that people release, and gets >> circulated annoys me. Take a look at this unix shell script, >> >> >> http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/bad-code/sympow-1.018.1.p7/src/Configure >> >> or the C code in the same directory >> >> >> http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/bad-code/sympow-1.018.1.p7/src/ >> >> >> But another issue is that sometimes people DO want to make money from >> their code. In that case, they want to keep it secret (as Bruce did). >> But I supect in many cases they would probably agree to it being made >> public in the event of their death or them becoming incapacitated. >> Code like Bruch wrote is unlikely to be commerically useful to his >> family, so he might as well make it public. But it may be too late. >> >> I wonder if there is a technical solution to this. You encrypt your >> secret source code, giving the encrypted code to anyone that wants it. >> You give 3 people you trust part of the decryption key. Any two parts >> are sufficient to decrypt the code. Would something like that be >> acceptable to individuals that make money from code, but don't >> realistically believe it will survice commerically without them. >> >> >> Dave >> >> _______________________________________________ >> time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe, go to >> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts >> and follow the instructions there. >> > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. > _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
