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
|