What I find a bit disturbing is that the so called da Vinci Group, producing commercial applications, provides free TI-89 games on its website that it did not write, and that these games likely attract many visitors to their site (on the basis of www.dvtg.com/downloads/89games.htm ranking #2 on yahoo searches of the text "ti 89 games" (without quotes) using content that the da Vinci Group did not create); of the visitors, in addition, some will likely buy the software. The free software that it did not write, in other words, is indirectly generating it money. Too bad there's no software license being used with TI-89 software with this software that disallows it from being used on commercial sites. I think that if it provides free content that it did not create it should make its own content free or not provide it. Likewise, people making their software use the GNU Public License (gnu.org) require that those editing its software provide updates to the software in terms of source code, free of cost (from a legal basis this is not the same but from an ethics viewpoint it is similar). Ok, so maybe they created the software and want to profit from it. They are profiting from software that they didn't create, however, and this is wrong.

And sort of similar, TI who wants people to buy their sdks gives links to amature (as in not for money) websites and tells them to learn there.

What I want is for people who write programming developement utilities like vti, asmstudio, tigcc ide, and the tigcc utilities package being made by Thomas Nussbaumer, is to state in their license that they are free only to people making free programs. No way should any company like this da Vinci Group ever benefit for free from the stuff the ticomunity has made.

Not mention that TI just to satisfy companies like da Vinci, introduced stupid 8/24K limit, released claustrophobic Hardware release 2 and made police method of certifying every FLASH application.

I think what you're trying to say is "This software is to be used for NON-COMMERCIAL use only."

Exactly, and in addition to the developement utilities we should apply the same to algorythms. For example Huff library is open source and if I remember correctly this new flash app has a database of diagrams and other info. I am not saying that they actually have compressed such data or that they did it with huffman compression, but they should not be allowed to use the open source Huffman routines.

Though in order to inforce this the origional author of the library might have to actually patent the routine. Could someone explain the difference between copywriting and patenting computor source code?

a copyright would prevent them from using your code. they're free to use the same algorithm, as long as they write their own code to use it. a copyright is also free unless you want to have a govt record, or defend it in court.

a patent would prevent them from using your algorithm (process). you can't patent huffman encoding (for example) because it's already in use, you didn't invent it. patents are not free (afaik)

so basically, you can copyright your code & tell people how they can (or can't) use it, but they can always write their own version. you can patent your own compression method or something, but they can just use a different one, and no doubt there's an unpantented one that's better than yours.

The GPL applies to TI-GCC, and I think it says something like that. I should probably re-read it just to make sure. However, it would still not prevent other companies from putting it on their site if they wanted to.

Since you are writing the tigcc ide it is good that you responded so thank you. But my comment was not about the distribution of the ide (though the origional post was about distribution of programs) but was about who could use it and for what purposes.

OK, but I think this would require writing one's own license agreement, which is not something I can or want to do.

Yeah, this happens a lot, and it works

Okay... I've been reading this article and the arguments on capitalism and what have you and I've come to this conclusion. You're all nutz!!!

Okay let me say this:

I go to walmart. I find a wonderful computer. Place somewhere near 2000 dollars on the counter and take the machine home, hook it up and then decide that I want to get Quake III. SO then I shell out more money for the program. But wait, I just paid for the HARDWARE, why do I need to pay for the SOFTWARE?

Cause people that made the software have to eat too. They expect some gratitiude for there work. And they probably tried "the send me a postcard" bit when they were starting, but that was when they were a too bit text adventure company. Now they're a big corporation and DAMN, they make EverQuest and online games that people Like to play, get addicted to and just need to play. So instead of requesting a postcard for something they charge 40 dollars for a software taht will be out of date by the time you install it. Which means that after you install it you have to spend 2 1/2 hours patching and fixing. On top of that you spend $60 a year to play the game online until they come out with an update which you pay another 40 bucks a month for.

The same thing applies for a calculator. It's software, people work, produce software and it's always been that way. Even since DOS people. Think about it, once you get software to where you can force people to pay for it you force em to pay for it.

Simple human nature.

I don't see what the big deal is about paying for software is, just because it's for a calculator doesn't mean it has to be free. I own a copy of EE*Pro for the 89 and I'm quite happy with it. I don't most people here are also aware that a lot of the software that DaVinci wrote for the HP 48 series came about out $60-$120, I'm sure some HP users complained about the price, but then again most of the HP users are professionals and to them it was just an extension of the calc's capibilities. Also, the reason that the price of EE*Pro/ME*Pro is $49.50 is because the volume of sales isn't very high, TI doesn't have the number of professial users that HP does.

-Eric

>> the volume of sales isn't very high, TI doesn't
>> have the number of professial users that HP does.

That's going to change very soon. It's already changing, actually, as people get frustrated with HP.

If I was french I would not want to be called a frenchie.

Every person except mechanical engineers will think the price is very high and unjustified because they have no need for the application. Mechanical engineers, however, will find the application very useful and worth its high price. It was never intended for the general public. Rather than sell many copies at $10 each, they are selling them for about $50 because this is what works. Would a sizable amount of people buy ME Pro for $10? No. But mechanical engineers will, and there is not a large number of them. Therefore, considering the limited copies which will be purchased, the company has no choice but to charge a high amount.

Software production is quite expensive, and $50 is needed to offset their costs. How long does it take you to write a simple ASM program? Now think about a team of programmers creating a complex flash application. It takes many hours to enter data and design the images. Add time for debugging, testing, marketing, etc. Assume each programmer is being payed a low wage of $8 per hour. Their costs are very high, and since mostly mechanical engineers will purchase the software, they need a $50 price to produce a decent product. Unless a HUGE amount of people are going to purchase this app, I see no reason to object to the price. I certainly wouldn't purchase it if I was a mechanical engineer, I'd write my own program. One more factor to consider: Most professionals use HP calculators, especially engineers. This means that their market base is very limited. In fact, they might have been better off if they created a more general flash application rather than something so specific.

I own ME*Pro, and it's need, but not worth it. I am an engineering student at Oregon State, where ME*Pro and EE*Pro is written, and it is a good design to follow that can be written in C simpler (but not all the pretty unnessary pictures). The only thing I use consistently are the steam tables, and that is because I'm in Chemical Engineering, Mechanical Engineers' are not focusing on steam as they once did. In real life you will not use your TI-89 calculator to derive the complex problems this program claims to perform out in the field. It's more like a very simplified Geick Engineering Formula's book in your calculator, and I would trust a manual over my calc any day! The steam tables are also off because they were created by interpolation methods which do not display the real non-ideal system. It is pretty useless after Statics and Dynamics. As I said, it's a more of a reference than anything, but with PDA's that hold eBooks and can have elaborate programs written for them, I would never again invest $49.50 for a calculator program. It's just not worth it! Also, I agree that no program should cost more than $15 including this app, but people need to realize it's a Corvallis, Oregon thing. They still try to sell TI-89s for $190.00 a piece, $50 for a standard serial graphing cable, and daVinci products. Keep that in mind when you support a company that don't support their own students. (Other professors and local engineers that write books and software and live in the area give incredible discounts for their students as a way of showing support for their university.)