2 Jan
2006
2 Jan
'06
3:02 a.m.
Regarding the ImageDisk project:
I was surprised at how much positive and supporting email I received
in the past two weeks regarding ImageDisk, and I have been even more
surprised at the number of people who asked me to continue the project
- I did not think that many people were using (or at least interested
in using) the program.
In the light of this feedback, I am willing try and not allow the bad
vibes from a few to bring down what so many indicate they still consider
to be a good thing. To that end, I have reconnected the images archive
on my web site, and I will continue to make the latest versions of
ImageDisk available there. As this is a privately developed/funded
project, you can choose to use it or ignore it as suits your particular
mindset.
I do not wish to re-open the can of worms that has aleady played out
here, so please consider the following my "final say" on the subjects.
If you disagree with my decisions, I invite you to excercise your option
of creating your own software package more suitable to your requirements.
Binary / Image Format
---------------------
Some people have expressed concern about the future of the program
as well as it's current legal status, especially given that I was ready
to withdraw it from circulation. To address this, I have released a new
version (1.09) of the program which contains an explicit license, which
essentially states:
- You may use the program for as long as you like.
- You may distribute copies of the program as long as you do not alter
or omit the original content. (You may make additions as long as they
are clearly marked as such).
- You may create/manipulate .IMD image files with no restriction (at
least not from me) - I have included a statement explicitly placing
the .IMD image file format specification into the public domain.
- I guarantee nothing / I take no responsibility for what you do with
any of this material.
FYI: 1.09 also correctly supports the secondary controller, and should
support 4 drives/controller - although I am unable to test the latter.
It also has a new command in the Align/Test function that lets you
write out a .IMD file containing a single track (read by 'D'), which
can be useful for recovering marginal/bad sectors. (It was to me!)
Source Code
-----------
As noted in one of my earlier postings, I have no plans to release
the ImageDisk source code under GPL - I don't agree with GPL. If
your position is an inflexible "GPL or the highway", then please
locate the nearest on-ramp and be on your way with no further ado.
It is interesting to note that although I offered to make the source
code available under a Non-Distribution-Agreement to anyone who had
need of it, only one person asked for it, and this person was not one
of those involved in the "discussion" (in fact this person does not
subscribe to the mailing list and heard about the source code offer by
another channel). I also gave the code to a second person (from the
list) who was trying to get ImageDisk running under DOSEMU and I saw
that he would benefit from seeing exactly what it was doing with the
hardware (although he never actually asked for it).
I'm not sure exacty what the above means, but it would suggest that
the negative statements made in the mailing list and in private email
were motivated more by "religion" than by any pressing need for the
source code.
At this time, for reasons I have already stated, I am not ready to
make the ImageDisk source code generally available for modification.
To address concerns that my source code policy is preventing people
from developing similar programs (I can't see why),
and for those who
stated that they simply can't use the program without looking
at it's
source code (and for whatever reasons are unwilling to simply ask for
it), I have made the concession of allowing the ImageDisk source files
to be anonymously accessed on a "view only" basis. You can download
IMDSRC.ZIP from my web site, which contains a viewer which will let
you browse the source code files.
I have no doubt that there are plenty of people here with the technical
skills to break the viewer and extract the source code files, however I
I ask that you please not do so. Please refer to the README.TXT file in
the archive for my reasons. If you have a legitimate need to use the
source files, please contact me and I am sure we can work out an
arrangment. It is my wish to fully support anyone who is developing an
ImageDisk compatible program for other environments.
Regarding concerns that not using GPL will prevent anyone from using
"ideas" from my source code - please note:
I hold copyright on this code which protects this particular
implementation/representation of the ideas and algorithms used within
it, however I have neither applied for, nor received patents on any
portion of the program. This means the ideas and algorithms themselves
are NOT restricted. In other words you can use any of the techniques
which I have employed in your own programs. To clairify this point, I
have made an explicit statement to this effect in the terms and
conditions which accompany the code viewer (although such a statement
is not strictly necessary).
--
dave04a (at) Dave Dunfield
dunfield (dot) Firmware development services & tools: www.dunfield.com
com Collector of vintage computing equipment:
http://www.parse.com/~ddunfield/museum/index.html
2 Jan
2 Jan
7:20 a.m.
Dave Dunfield wrote:
I hold copyright on this code which protects this
particular
implementation/representation of the ideas and algorithms used within
it, however I have neither applied for, nor received patents on any
portion of the program. This means the ideas and algorithms themselves
are NOT restricted. In other words you can use any of the techniques
Just my 2p worth, but if you think the algorithms may be patentable it
could be worth patenting them before $evil_megacorp does. Whether or
not you choose to defend that patent is another matter.
It would be better to have one of the "good guys" holding the patents.
Gordon.
8:18 a.m.
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 12:20:00 +0000
Gordon JC Pearce <gordonjcp at gjcp.net> wrote:
Dave Dunfield wrote:
It's essentially 'published' now. Doesn't that mean a 'prior
art' defense will work?
I hold copyright on this code which protects this
particular
implementation/representation of the ideas and algorithms used within
it, however I have neither applied for, nor received patents on any
portion of the program. This means the ideas and algorithms themselves
are NOT restricted. In other words you can use any of the techniques
Just my 2p worth, but if you think the algorithms may be patentable it
could be worth patenting them before $evil_megacorp does. Whether or
not you choose to defend that patent is another matter.
It would be better to have one of the "good guys" holding the patents.
12:08 p.m.
> Just my 2p worth, but if you think the algorithms
may be patentable
> it could be worth patenting them before $evil_megacorp does. [...]
> It would be better to have one of the "good guys" holding the
> patents.
It's essentially 'published' now.
Doesn't that mean a 'prior art'
defense will work?
Most places, I think so. But in the USA, there's traditionally been a
one-year grace period between publication and unpatentability. (I put
it that way because whether it's still so I don't know.)
Of course, whether Dave cares about patents in the USA is another
matter, seeing as how he's in Canada.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
9:40 a.m.
Of course, whether Dave cares about patents in the USA
is another
matter, seeing as how he's in Canada.
Forgive me for quoting out of order, but I wanted to make this point first.
I have no interest in patenting any part of this particular program (in the
USA or Canada), for several reasons:
- A patent would serve to suppress use of the idea. It may not be obvious
from recent "debates", but the whole point of ImageDisk is NOT about this
one program, but it is about the documented image format, and in allowing
people to explore other means than just my IMD command to access the
data (which is one reason why the format is in the public domain). A patent
on any part of the process would serve only to restrict future access.
- I have no reason to patent any part of it, as I have no current or projected
revenue stream to protect.
- I personally disagree with the general notion of a software patent (most of
the patents that I am aware of are not what I would personally consider to be
unique/original enough that they should have such protection - there are a
couple of exeptions).
- Most important!
There is nothing in the program which I believe to be patentable! Figuring
out what is passing under the head of a disk drive and reading that data into
a file is NOT "rocket science" ... It's just a matter of groking the data
sheets
for the disk controller...
It's
essentially 'published' now. Doesn't that mean a 'prior art'
defense will work?
Most places, I think so. But in the USA, there's traditionally been a
one-year grace period between publication and unpatentability. (I put
it that way because whether it's still so I don't know.)
3:58 p.m.
Of course,
whether Dave cares about patents in the USA is another
matter, seeing as how he's in Canada.
Forgive me for quoting out of order, but
I wanted to make this point
first. I have no interest in patenting any part of this particular
program (in the USA or Canada), for several reasons: - A patent would serve to suppress use of the idea.
[...]
A patent *can* serve to supporess use of the idea. It does not have
to; indeed, a number of organizations have purely defensive patents,
and at one point I heard of a "Free Patent Foundation", which
membership in meant you agreed to license all your patents for free to
all other members in exchange for reciprocal licenses to all their
patents - and there's no requirement that one hold any patents in order
to join. Perfect for those who truly do want to use patents only
defensively. (I did a bit of googling and it looks as though there's
nothing under that name live now.)
If you want to allay any fears that any putative patents could be
turned to evil ends in the future, you could grant an irrevocable,
perpetual, *sublicensable* license to someone the community trusts (my
favourite example is Eric Raymond).
- I have no reason to patent any part of it, as I have
no current or
projected revenue stream to protect.
That is not the only reason for a patent. A patent also serves to
prevent anyone else from patenting the same thing (and then using that
patent to prevent you or others from practicing the technique).
- I personally disagree with the general notion of a
software patent
So do I. But given the broken legal system we live in, occasionally it
is necessary to use the tools the system gives, even though they are
tools usually turned to distasteful ends.
- Most important!
There is nothing in the program which I believe to be patentable!
This is an excellent reason, and quite likely true from what I've read
of ID.
There's also the point that getting a patent tends to be expen$ive,
though I don't know just how much so, and without the revenue stream
you pointed out you don't have, that money has to come from somewhere
else. It's a tradeoff between the risk that someone else will get a
patent and enforce it against you, versus the cost of getting (or at
least attempting to get) the patent yourself.
So far in my own case it's always come down against going for the
patent. I expect it will in your case too....
It's essentially 'published' now.
Doesn't that mean a 'prior art'
defense will work?
Most places, I think so. But in the USA, there's
traditionally been
a one-year grace period between publication and unpatentability. (I
put it that way because whether it's still so I don't know.)
1:51 p.m.
Note, following discussion is mainly "banter" because as noted in my last
post, I don't think there is anything sufficently unique to be patentable in
this case.
This I do agree with (even though I don't like the fact that we have to think
this way), and if I felt there was sufficent cause for concern that the ability
to analyze a floppy disk could get "taken away from us", then I would persue
means to protect it, however as stated earlier, I do not believe this is the
case.
We do have some protection. I have stated copyright on the code, and have
evidence as to my creation dating back when I started the project in the middle
of last year (and FDC experience predating that by many years). I have given
out copies of it to a few people along the way who could be called upon to give
evidence. I have also just "published" the code in a viewable form.
There are also other members of this list who have done significant work along
these lines - a "newcomer" would be very hard pressed to show "original
content" - Like I said earlier, read and understand the data books, and you are
most of the way there.
And lets face it - commercial interest in floppy disks (let alone old ones) is
not exactly at an all time high.... (I really do think we are quite safe).
Not much I can say in response to this ... it's true and it sux.
Yes, this is another major factor - Even if I did think it was patentable, I
would think hard about the expense of persuing it - I would probably
instead place it into the public domain.
The only reason I mentioned the word "patent" in the first place, is that
it would appear that some of the people most opposed to my source code
policy were confusing the idea of "Copyright" and "Patent". By stating
that
I have not applied for nor received any patents, I was driving home the
point that I do not claim ownership in any way of the ideas, techniques and
algorithms used in ImageDisk.
If that is the case, then the system is truly broken (I mean more than we
already know it is) - I don't care how you slice it, taking an idea that some
schmuck thought of and published but decided not to buy his lawyer a
new boat in the process does not constitute "invention".
--
dave04a (at) Dave Dunfield
dunfield (dot) Firmware development services & tools: www.dunfield.com
com Collector of vintage computing equipment:
http://www.parse.com/~ddunfield/museum/index.html
- A patent
would serve to suppress use of the idea. [...]
A patent *can* serve to supporess
use of the idea. It does not have
to; indeed, a number of organizations have purely defensive patents,
and at one point I heard of a "Free Patent Foundation", which If you want to allay any fears that any putative
patents could be
turned to evil ends in the future, you could grant an irrevocable,
perpetual, *sublicensable* license to someone the community trusts (my
Although I understand what you are saying, it's kind of like "I beat my head
against the wall because it feels so good when I stop" - In this case, we are
discussing putting a "lock" on intellectual property just so that we can give
out the keys...(notwithstanding the argument below).
- I have no
reason to patent any part of it, as I have no current or
projected revenue stream to protect.
That is not the only reason for a patent. A patent also serves to
prevent anyone else from patenting the same thing (and then using that
patent to prevent you or others from practicing the technique). - I personally
disagree with the general notion of a software patent
So do I. But given the
broken legal system we live in, occasionally it
is necessary to use the tools the system gives, even though they are
tools usually turned to distasteful ends. - Most
important!
There is nothing in the program which I believe to be patentable!
This is an excellent reason, and quite likely true from what I've read
of ID.
There's also the point that getting a patent tends to be expen$ive,
though I don't know just how much so, and without the revenue stream
you pointed out you don't have, that money has to come from somewhere
else. It's a tradeoff between the risk that someone else will get a
patent and enforce it against you, versus the cost of getting (or at
least attempting to get) the patent yourself.
So far in my own case it's always come down against going for the
patent. I expect it will in your case too.... I don't
know USA patent law in great detail, but doesn't this refer
to publication by the applicant of the patent
What I've read of the situation in the USA leads me to think that the
relationship, if any, between the entity publishing the work and the
entity applying for the patent is completely irrelevant. 
4:35 p.m.
New subject: [OT] Patents (was: ImageDisk)
On Mon, 2006-01-02 15:58:46 -0500, der Mouse <mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca>
wrote:
Well, countries/peoples also build Atomic bombs just to have them and
to hinder other countries to use those... That's not neccessarily a
good idea.
Copyright and prior art would allow to fight back.
Well, patents are most commonly filed for applications in which no
normal-thinking ("common sense") people would find one in...
Not goin' in-depth, I want to state two things about you (Dave) and
ImageDisk:
* Thanks for turning down your idea to stop the project.
* Though I like the GPL and have published code under the GPL, I'm
agaiting the point in time when you think you're ready for
publishing (under whatever license you like, as long as sources
get available). I probably won't contribute to ImageDisk (not
because I don't like it, not because if license issues, just
because I got enough other building places and only a negative
amount of time is available...), but I probably would like to have
a look at it, to (from a practical point of view) understand how a
FDC works.
So again, thanks for reconsidering your point of view.
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw at lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481 _ O _
"Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg _ _ O
f?r einen Freien Staat voll Freier B?rger" | im Internet! | im Irak! O O O
ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));
- I have no
reason to patent any part of it, as I have no current or
projected revenue stream to protect.
That is not the only reason for a patent. A patent also serves to
prevent anyone else from patenting the same thing (and then using that
patent to prevent you or others from practicing the technique). - I personally
disagree with the general notion of a software patent
So do I. But given the broken legal system we live in, occasionally it
is necessary to use the tools the system gives, even though they are
tools usually turned to distasteful ends. - Most
important!
There is nothing in the program which I believe to be patentable!
This is an excellent reason, and quite likely true from what I've read
of ID.
6848
days inactive
6848
days old
7 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
chenmel＠earthlink.net -
dave04a＠dunfield.com -
gordonjcp＠gjcp.net -
jbglaw＠lug-owl.de -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA