"Ian Clarke" <i_d_cla...@yahoo.com> writes: > Henry Townsend wrote: >> Say what you like about >> the wording but there is nothing wrong with (re)using the code.
> I'd say this: leaving aside copyright, the use of another > person's programs in your own book without even attributing > that use is highly questionable.
Does anyone attribute "Hello World" program?
Dragan
-- Dragan Cvetkovic,
To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer
!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
> > Henry Townsend wrote: > >> Say what you like about > >> the wording but there is nothing wrong with (re)using the code.
> > I'd say this: leaving aside copyright, the use of another > > person's programs in your own book without even attributing > > that use is highly questionable.
>> > Henry Townsend wrote: >> >> Say what you like about >> >> the wording but there is nothing wrong with (re)using the code.
>> > I'd say this: leaving aside copyright, the use of another >> > person's programs in your own book without even attributing >> > that use is highly questionable.
>> Does anyone attribute "Hello World" program?
> What are you meaining to say?
That some programs become so common and are a part of "UNIX folklore" so that nobody attributes them any more and doesn't say e.g. "Hello world" program was originally written by (say) K&R (I don't really know who wrote that one), reference [1].
Bye, Dragan
-- Dragan Cvetkovic,
To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer
!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
> That some programs become so common and are a part of "UNIX folklore" so > that nobody attributes them any more and doesn't say e.g. "Hello world" > program was originally written by (say) K&R (I don't really know who wrote > that one), reference [1].
> >> > Henry Townsend wrote: > >> >> Say what you like about > >> >> the wording but there is nothing wrong with (re)using the code.
> >> > I'd say this: leaving aside copyright, the use of another > >> > person's programs in your own book without even attributing > >> > that use is highly questionable.
> >> Does anyone attribute "Hello World" program?
> > What are you meaining to say?
> That some programs become so common and are a part of "UNIX folklore" so > that nobody attributes them any more and doesn't say e.g. "Hello world" > program was originally written by (say) K&R (I don't really know who wrote > that one), reference [1].
In the Process Control chapter (15) of Teer, it appears that nearly all of the programs are heavily derived from the chapter of the same name (8) in Stevens. Are you trying to draw a parallel between the reproduction of a 5 line program of unknown origin and the duplication without attribution of several complex programs, in order to say that the latter is acceptable practice?
"Ian Clarke" <i_d_cla...@yahoo.com> writes: > In the Process Control chapter (15) of Teer, it appears > that nearly all of the programs are heavily derived from > the chapter of the same name (8) in Stevens. Are you trying > to draw a parallel between the reproduction of a 5 line > program of unknown origin and the duplication without > attribution of several complex programs, in order to say > that the latter is acceptable practice?
What complex programs in chapter 15 of Rich Teer? Most of examples there are a simple demonstration of fork(2), exec(2) wait(2) etc system calls...
Dragan
-- Dragan Cvetkovic,
To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer
!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
Dragan Cvetkovic <m...@privacy.net> wrote: > Good thing about this excersize of yours is that you will become quite > familiar with both Teer's and Stevens' book, which is good for you.
It's too bad you weren't that familiar with the technical areas involved.
Henry Townsend <henry.towns...@not.here> wrote: > Ian Clarke wrote: >> I had a look at that chapter (chap. 23): most of the diagrams >> are the same or very similar (and in the same order), there >> are a number of rather similar looking paragraphs and a >> general order of presentation that is very similar to >> Stevens (chap. 19). Most notably, the main example program >> of the chapter (pty.c) is the same program (with some >> modification) as Stevens wrote. > The APUE sample code is, as far as I can tell, made available for any > use. Which would include use in another book. Say what you like about > the wording but there is nothing wrong with (re)using the code.
That came up a couple of years ago. The publisher's response precludes this type of reuse.
Ian Clarke <i_d_cla...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> use. Which would include use in another book. > I'm not sure how you work this out. The code is part of the book > and the book carries a copyright notice (to the publisher, not > the author!). Yes, the code was made available on Stevens' > homepage, but that does not remove the copyright.
Ian Clarke <i_d_cla...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Dragan Cvetkovic wrote: ... >> Does anyone attribute "Hello World" program? > What are you meaining to say?
Take a look at the credits in SSP. Then take a look at Dragan's postings in comp.unix.solaris and ask yourself why anyone would choose this person to review a technical book.
> > In the Process Control chapter (15) of Teer, it appears > > that nearly all of the programs are heavily derived from > > the chapter of the same name (8) in Stevens. Are you trying > > to draw a parallel between the reproduction of a 5 line > > program of unknown origin and the duplication without > > attribution of several complex programs, in order to say > > that the latter is acceptable practice?
> What complex programs in chapter 15 of Rich Teer? Most of examples there > are a simple demonstration of fork(2), exec(2) wait(2) etc system
calls...
The dozen or so programs in Teer chapter 15 range from 20 to 50 lines. I can find an analog of EACH of these programs in Stevens chapter 8. The differences are largely cosmetic: details of error handling, changes in function and variable names, using "switch" instead of "if", changing the names of programs that are passed to exec(), using "return" instead of "exit". However, the overall structures and ideas are the same. (In the pseudo-terminals chapter, a more complex (a few hundred lines spread over several files) program appears to be borrowed.)
One could argue that a few of these programs are small enough that the borrowing is trivial, and I would partly agree. However, it is suspicious that ALL of the programs have analogs in Stevens (it seems impossible that that could have happened by chance), especially when considered in the context of the other close similarities already mentioned (eg the structure, diagrams, and definite paragraphs in the "Process Relationships" chapters).
>Take a look at the credits in SSP. Then take a look at Dragan's postings >in comp.unix.solaris and ask yourself why anyone would choose this person to >review a technical book.
Actually, I've seen a number of useful comments from Dragan in some newsgroups.
But I'm not sure why we have a reviewer responding here instead of the author.
