WP 34S: CASE example issue in the latest manual

[Didier Lachieze]

I've found an issue in the example of the CASE instruction in my pdf manual v3.3 compared to my 34S v3.3 rev 3815:

The manual says: CASE s works like SKIP but s indicates the number of steps to skip.

=> that's fine, thats how it works on my 34S.

Then the example is:

Quote:Assume the following program section:
...
100 CASE 12
101 GTO 01
102 GTO 02
[...]
In program execution, r12 will be checked in
step 100: if r12 ≤ 1 then the program will
proceed to step 101

=> that's not how it works on my 34S, if r12=1 then one step is skipped and execution continues to step 102, not 101. The execution continues to step 101 if r12=0, which is in line with the description of CASE as there is no step to skip from 100 to 101.

[Dieter]

(03-08-2016 11:23 PM)Didier Lachieze Wrote:  I've found an issue in the example of the CASE instruction in my pdf manual v3.3 compared to my 34S v3.3 rev 3815:

FTR: the same error can be found in the freely available v3.2 PDF manual (and I assume it's also in other, earlier versions). In the given example all references to the content of r12 are off by one.

On the other hand the initial general description of the CASE function is correct: "CASE s ... works like SKIP below but takes the number of steps to skip from s". The following example, however, is wrong, just as you said.

Walter: if you prepare a correction you should also add that negative arguments (e.g. "r12≤0") are not allowed and will throw an "Out or Range" error.

Dieter

[ggauny@live.fr]

In my 3883 virtual version I obtain the same thing.

[fhub]

(03-09-2016 11:50 PM)Dieter Wrote:  FTR: the same error can be found in the freely available v3.2 PDF manual (and I assume it's also in other, earlier versions). In the given example all references to the content of r12 are off by one.

I've fixed this error (and another one about alphaIP described in the post below)
http://www.hpmuseum.org/forum/thread-347...l#pid31612
in my own (private) WP34s 3.3 manual, which I've updated from the official manual version 3.1 to 3.3 myself -
if anyone wants this 3.3 manual, it's here:
http://www82.zippyshare.com/v/x3dEIIh9/file.html

Franz

[walter b]

Thanks to Didier and Dieter for reporting. These issues are corrected in v3.3a which is going to be published.

d:-)

@Franz: You are blatantly infringing copyright and you know it. Keep off!

d>:-(

[fhub]

(06-05-2016 12:05 AM)walter b Wrote:  @Franz: You are blatantly infringing copyright and you know it. Keep off!

Thanks for reminding me to update my link (because it has already expired).

WP34s manual 3.3 (update from the free Sourceforge version 3.1):
http://www64.zippyshare.com/v/oMMpBwTf/file.html

And stop accusing me of doing anything illegal ("infringing copyright"), repeating your lie again and again doesn't make it true.
My updated manual 3.3 is made from the free(!) WP34s manual 3.1 at the Sourceforge site, and you yourself allowed to use this manual in any way anyone wants ("feel free to take the pdf-file and do with it whatever you want") -
as a proof here's the posting with this statement of you from the old HP forum archive, so everyone can read and decide, who is right:
http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/...093#235093

Franz

[walter b]

Bad luck, Franz. What you quoted (from 2012) turns out being a personal permission for Didier when read completely:

(06-05-2016 12:54 PM)fhub Wrote:  as a proof here's the posting ... of you from the old HP forum archive, so everyone can read and decide, who is right:
http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/...093#235093

Remember quote-mining (i.e. cutting the important parts and taking quotes out of context) and quoting are two different cups of tea (ask Dennis). And I remember that topic was discussed more recently for sure - I may find it.

d:-/

[rprosperi]

(06-05-2016 12:54 PM)fhub Wrote:  ...as a proof here's the posting with this statement of you from the old HP forum archive, so everyone can read and decide, who is right:
http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/...093#235093

It appears to me Walter was granting Didier permission, not everyone.

In the larger view however, there is an important difference between legally right and morally right. If you want a manual updated for yourself, go ahead and do it quietly, but why continue to provoke like this... it's simply not right.

[fhub]

(06-05-2016 01:42 PM)rprosperi Wrote:  It appears to me Walter was granting Didier permission, not everyone.

He uploaded this manual as integral part of the open source! WP34s project (which is under GPL!) on the Sourceforge site, so there's no need to explicitely grant permission to anyone (and of course also no possibility to forbid the usage to anyone else) - all this is already handled by the GPL conditions.

Quote:... why continue to provoke like this... it's simply not right.

Well, I did not provoke at all, Walter was provoking again by repeatedly accusing me of doing something illegal, and that's nothing I can simply accept!

There's no need for further replies, I just wanted to clear this accusation finally!

Franz

[emece67]

I cannot find any copyright notice in the v3.1 manual. But my personal v3.3 PDF has it, clearly stated on page 2.

I'm aware that these IP questions many times are like a slippery slope, but I see no reason why somebody cannot modify & redistribute it, evenmore when such person does not claim authorship of the original edition, credits the author of the original version and does not make money with it.

Only if fhub had included on its version material from the copyrighted v3.3 (I've not checked this, although I suspect it is not the case), then it would be objectionable or illicit, but, as I said, I think this is not the case.

Just my 0.02. Regards.

[pascal_meheut]

(06-05-2016 06:22 PM)emece67 Wrote:  I'm aware that these IP questions many times are like a slippery slope, but I see no reason why somebody cannot modify & redistribute it, evenmore when such person does not claim authorship of the original edition, credits the author of the original version and does not make money with it.

I agree. AFAIK the 3.1 version does not contains any copyright and is uploaded as a part of a GPL project.

[Guenter Schink]

(06-05-2016 01:42 PM)rprosperi Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 12:54 PM)fhub Wrote:  ...as a proof here's the posting with this statement of you from the old HP forum archive, so everyone can read and decide, who is right:
http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/...093#235093

It appears to me Walter was granting Didier permission, not everyone.

In the larger view however, there is an important difference between legally right and morally right. If you want a manual updated for yourself, go ahead and do it quietly, but why continue to provoke like this... it's simply not right.

No Bob,

this project was published under GPL, including the manual 3.1 as Franz rightfully said. No one can revoke later what was published under the GPL. And everybody, even Franz, has the right to exercise his rights - period. The manual 3.3 published later by Walter is another case.

If there is any ambiguity on the license, it is at the expense of the publisher of the license. Don't accuse Franz of infringing morally.

Here we have two difficult characters:
Franz is taking leave from time to time, promising, he'll never be back.
Walter is sent to leave from time to time, because he can't stop to affront "the SM".

It would be better if those guys would grow up.

/rant Günter

Edit: spelling

[rprosperi]

(06-05-2016 09:05 PM)Guenter Schink Wrote:  No Bob,

this project was published under GPL, including the manual 3.1 as Franz rightfully said. No one can revoke later what was published under the GPL. And everybody, even Franz, has the right to exercise his rights - period. The manual 3.3 published later by Walter is another case.

If there is any ambiguity on the license, it is at the expense of the publisher of the license. Don't accuse Franz of infringing morally.

Here we have to difficult characters:
Franz is taking leave from time to time, promising, he'll never be back.
Walter is sent to leave from time to time, because he can't stop to affront "the SM".

It would be better if those guys would grow up.

/rant Günter

I agree there is no issue of legal wrong here, the original manual released uder GPL is subject to those restrictions and freedoms. This was granted when the 3.1 manual was released this way.

We may have to agree to disagree Günter, but I feel that changing the author's work and distributing it, against his specific request, is morally wrong, especially within such a small, close group.

That said, I must agree with your analysis of the situation. The continued poking (both ways) does no good for anyone. Lets all leave this issue in the past and look forward to positive contributions to the group from both players.

[Guenter Schink]

(06-06-2016 01:52 PM)rprosperi Wrote:  We may have to agree to disagree Günter,

agreed, Günter

[pascal_meheut]

(06-06-2016 01:52 PM)rprosperi Wrote:  but I feel that changing the author's work and distributing it, against his specific request, is morally wrong

If you do not want you work to be changed, you do not contribute to an open-source project under GPL.
You cannot come back later and say "what I gave to the community is now my property and I want to make money out of it".

Not to mention that this policy is also the reason why we do not have a contextual help based on the manual in the emulators.
This is the exact opposite of what open-source is and when it comes to morally wrong, I thing you are pointing in the wrong direction.

[rprosperi]

(06-06-2016 07:44 PM)pascal_meheut Wrote:  If you do not want you work to be changed, you do not contribute to an open-source project under GPL.
You cannot come back later and say "what I gave to the community is now my property and I want to make money out of it".

I agree this should not have happened, for all the sensible reasons you note, but it did. Given that, I'm just opining on what has happened since, not on should it have happened in the first place.

(06-06-2016 07:44 PM)pascal_meheut Wrote:  Not to mention that this policy is also the reason why we do not have a contextual help based on the manual in the emulators.

As I see it, you are free to do this, based on the 3.1 source. Though IMHO, given this murky past, it would be best to ask if it's OK to do so first.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned?

[pascal_meheut]

(06-07-2016 02:08 AM)rprosperi Wrote:  As I see it, you are free to do this, based on the 3.1 source.

The 3.1 source is not available, only the PDF which is not suitable for a contextual help.
And Walter refused to help...

If the other members had were like this, we would have more bugs, less functions, no WP-31s, no stopwatch, no emulators except the original one for instance.

(06-07-2016 02:08 AM)rprosperi Wrote:  Maybe I'm old-fashioned?

No, you simply do not know what really happened.

[emece67]

I'm a little confused now about the license status of the 3.1 manual. The cover of the manual states that:

This manual documents WP 34S. WP 34S is free software: you can
redistribute it and / or modify it under the terms of the GNU General
Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either
version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

For me this does not clearly state what is its license status. States that the software is GPL. Also states that the manual documents WP 34S but, is the manual part of WP 34S (and thus under GPL)? If so, the manual sources must be included in the distribution (I've just read the GPL FAQ, it says that if the manual is GPL, its sources must also be freely accessible, even if the manual is distributed in paper). If not, what is the license covering the manual? The manual does not have any copyright claim (or I cannot find them) on it, so, if it is not under GPL and does not have any copyright text on it, is it free? Can somebody use it, even make money selling it, provided such person does not claim authorship (authorship of the manual is stated on page 8)? Or are the authors, despite the lack of the (c) notice, in full control of it?

As I always find these questions, a slippery slope.

Regards.

[rprosperi]

(06-07-2016 05:43 AM)pascal_meheut Wrote:  No, you simply do not know what really happened.

Indeed, not. [Sigh...]

[BartDB]

So here's my take on the status of the manual:

There was someone who wrote a manual and posted it for free download with no restrictions.
He then decided some money was to be made.
In order to maximise profits he decided to retro-actively assert copyright on previously released material.

"morally right"?

The spirit of open-source is that the user has access to the source - including the source of the documentation.

WP-34s software id released under GPL, a licence for open-source software provided by the Free Software Foundation. It encourages the documentation (and source thereof) to be published under GNU FDL. From the Preamble of the GNU FDL 1.3:
"We have designed this License in order to use it for manuals for free software, because free software needs free documentation: a free program should come with manuals providing the same freedoms that the software does."
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html)

(I have included the link to page so everyone can read it in context).

Note that FSF always asserts that "free" is not about price, but it is about the users' right to copy, modify and redistribute.

So what (or who) is "morally right"?

(edited to correct spelling)