Using ideas presented in papers

Hans Nikolaus Beck HNBeck at t-online.de
Thu May 29 13:11:13 UTC 2003


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Am Donnerstag, 29.05.03 um 14:49 Uhr schrieb Stephane Ducasse:

> Hi hans
>
> so you should ***really*** look at what we did with codecrawler  
> because our constraint where that
> people should be able to reproduce in their contexts our ideas.
> Have fun.

Very good, because on this time, I'm working on a project bound very  
heavily on architecture and software engineering, so this fits  
perfectly :-)

>
> By the way in the french squeak mailing list there was a discussion  
> between people about building a
> graph library. So this could be also a way to collaborate. I put samir  
> on cc if you want to contact
> him. May be michele would be interested if we could build on his  
> experience: he has already graph,
> edge, nodes....and layout algorithms.
>
>


sounds interesting expecially that with the layout algorithms :-) I'll  
contact him.
Thank you again !

Hans

> Stef
>
> On Thursday, May 29, 2003, at 02:40 PM, Hans Nikolaus Beck wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi Stephane,
>>
>>
>> Am Mittwoch, 28.05.03 um 09:53 Uhr schrieb Stephane Ducasse:
>>
>>> Hi hans
>>>
>>> I'm interested in the papers you mention. Could you just point me to  
>>> the papers.
>>> You may like to know that michele lanza just put on his webpage his  
>>> PhD on this kind of topics.
>>> http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~lanza/
>>
>> Thank you very much for this link, because I'm interested using the  
>> Squeak environement to build a software engineering and  
>> -visualization tool (because  I'm not a PhD candidat but a  software  
>> engineer in a small company there is not very much time for such  
>> "research" or "fun stuff"  ;-))).
>>
>> The papers that I mean are "Software Visualization in the Large" by,  
>> T. Ball, S.G. Eick from Bell Labs, Computer, Vol 29. No 4 (1996)
>>  and
>> "Using Visualization to Maintain Large Computer Systems" by D.E.  
>> Fyock, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications Vol 17 No. 4 (1997)
>>
>> but these papers are only a starting point, I want to use more UML   
>> in the "graphic pipline" too, i.e. by using the conector stuff or  
>> what ever.....and I want to  keep such tools open to other paradims  
>> (functional and declarative programming).
>>
>> Greetings
>>
>> Hans
>>
>>
>>>
>>> CodeCrawler is working in VW
>>> Stef
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 08:07 PM, Hans Nikolaus Beck wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am Dienstag, 27.05.03 um 06:10 Uhr schrieb Alan Kay:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Andrew --
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks from me too, Andrew and the others. Of course I will contact  
>>>> the authors, and I also will have a look, if there are already   
>>>> some comercial products there. (BTW,  the point of interest are  
>>>> visualization techniques for source code, described in IEEE  
>>>> Computer Graphics & Visualization somewhere between 1995-1997)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks all.
>>>>
>>>> Hans
>>>>
>>>>> -----
>>>>>
>>>>> At 8:09 PM -0400 5/26/03, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
>>>>>> That would be too reasonable to expect of a Federal statute,  
>>>>>> Alan. Alas, the Patent Act generally proscribes ANY practicing of  
>>>>>> a patent during the term, whether commercial or not (Making,  
>>>>>> using, selling, offering for sale).  The only interesting  
>>>>>> question is whether the conduct infringes -- not whether it was  
>>>>>> "goodie, goodie" enough to avoid liability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said, there is case law supporting an "experimental use" or  
>>>>>> "fair use" exception.  An interesting article on the subject can  
>>>>>> be found at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	http://www.idea.piercelaw.edu/articles/30/p243.Grossman.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This exception is not very well-developed or clear, perhaps at  
>>>>>> the level of the initial fair use case under the 1909 Act case  
>>>>>> law (which recognized a fair use exception without a statute).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, May 26, 2003, at 08:39 PM, Alan Kay wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think you have infringed the patent. But now I'm not so  
>>>>>>> sure. I think there used to be a provision that individuals  
>>>>>>> could make a single version of anything for their own use  
>>>>>>> (Andrew?).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that the patent stuff is supposed to prevent competition  
>>>>>>> for sale of ideas and technologies, but it doesn't prevent  
>>>>>>> people making onesies for themselves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a different but related notion of "fair use" in  
>>>>>>> copyright law. One of the things that is most under attack right  
>>>>>>> now is "fair use" and what it means -- and indeed what patents  
>>>>>>> and copyrights actually mean these days.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  At 5:57 PM -0400 5/26/03, Rick McGeer wrote:
>>>>>>>> Alan,
>>>>>>>> Of course, one should always attribute.  But there is another  
>>>>>>>> question here. Suppose somebody patents a structure or protocol  
>>>>>>>> without implementing it.  I independently discover the thing,  
>>>>>>>> or something closely related, and implement it to see how it  
>>>>>>>> works in practice, how it fits with existing stuff, etc.  In  
>>>>>>>> the tradition of scientific publication, I want not only to  
>>>>>>>> write up the results but also release the source so others can  
>>>>>>>> play with the idea, experiment, extend, etc.  I've got no  
>>>>>>>> interest in selling the thing or exploiting it commercially.   
>>>>>>>> Question: have I infringed the patent, am I liable for damages,  
>>>>>>>> etc?  It would be really nasty to get sued for writing a  
>>>>>>>> paper...
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> Rick.
>>>>>>>> Alan Kay writes:
>>>>>>>>> I don't think you do need the agreement. But it is the  
>>>>>>>>> tradition of science to always give attribution to the  
>>>>>>>>> creators of the ideas. So "use and attribute".
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>>> At 7:08 PM +0200 5/25/03, Hans Nikolaus Beck wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>> if I want to implement  an algorithm or visualization  
>>>>>>>>>> technique in an open source project  (in fact: squeak) which  
>>>>>>>>>> was presented in a public paper (in this case IEEE Computer  
>>>>>>>>>> Graphics & Visualization), do I need the agreement of the  
>>>>>>>>>> authors ? That's a question related to the current situation  
>>>>>>>>>> of software patents and copyright as given by law of USA.  My  
>>>>>>>>>> feeling says: I need the agreement.
>>>>>>>>>> Greetings
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>>>>>>>> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin)
>>>>>>>>>> iD8DBQE+0Ph4X8NXna8434cRAjOvAKCC/ 
>>>>>>>>>> dPtuidQ6dasGBornR+2bilpGQCg92Zj
>>>>>>>>>> Ki5vzhrdTzT6Svb8lNmDFxU=
>>>>>>>>>> =mnPl
>>>>>>>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Rick McGeer           Ph: (925) 254-2524
>>>>>>>> 50 Diablo View Road  FAX: (925) 253-0623
>>>>>>>> Orinda, CA, 94563    Cell: (510) 334-6004
>>>>>>>> eMail: rick at mcgeer.com
>>>>>>>> Yahoo IM: rickmcgeer
>>>>>>>> MSN IM: rickmcgeer at hotmail.com
>>>>>>>> AOL IM: rick mcgeer 1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin)
>>>>
>>>> iD8DBQE+06l7X8NXna8434cRAh4wAJ4pfx8RLb/Dazs2fDJTERpSELwZ9gCcCg1g
>>>> 8QEf6+mpEDzYWwG+BOZKvO4=
>>>> =3DjS
>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin)
>>
>> iD8DBQE+1f+rX8NXna8434cRArTyAKC4smCGwOSJ7WS3vwxUNG/j3H6bqACeMAF+
>> Rzs2w+7/ODKDH2dMGiWI4kY=
>> =kxh4
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQE+1gb2X8NXna8434cRAhonAJ49yOYrG7tJe6twLL2MkrAfYpDShwCfa3UB
jMS6jTaWN2KwyzQ2mCFLqP8=
=V6qp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list