[time-nuts] Brooks Shera

EWKehren at aol.com EWKehren at aol.com
Fri Dec 21 21:52:55 UTC 2012


John
I send my posting to Mrs. Stoll for approval prior to posting.  Lets try 
not to start the usual arguments. Brooks deserves  better. 
Bert Kehren
 
 
In a message dated 12/21/2012 4:28:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
jra at febo.com writes:

And  folks, please respect Brooks' privacy -- remember that this list is  
archived in many places on the web.

John
----
paul swed said  the following on 12/21/2012 04:06 PM:
> Kind of defocusing here. I think  the thread is about possibly helping to
> release the shera v4.02  software. Several folks appear to be local to
> Brooks wife and may be  able to help her recover information she may need 
in
> general and if we  are lucky allow the software to be at least gathered.
> Regards
>  Paul
> WB8TSL
>
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 3:30 PM, David  Kirkby 
<david.kirkby at onetel.net>wrote:
>
>> On 21  December 2012 18:11, Chris Albertson  <albertson.chris at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I think  whatthis says is that if you've worked hard to make a design
>>>  available to others and you don't intend to sell it  commercially,
>>> PUBLISH the details, the design files and the  source code.   Yes I
>>> kknow it is never "good enough"  for others to see.  But in reality it
>>> is likely better  than what 99.9%  of others can do.
>>
>> I agree if you  don't want to sell it, then make it public, even if it
>> is not  "finished"
>>
>> That said, some of the ****  code that  people release, and gets
>> circulated annoys me.  Take a look  at this unix shell script,
>>
>>
>>  
http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/bad-code/sympow-1.018.1.p7/src/Configure
>>
>>  or the C code in the same directory
>>
>>
>>  
http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/bad-code/sympow-1.018.1.p7/src/
>>
>>
>>  But another issue is that sometimes people DO want to make money  from
>> their code. In that case, they want to keep it secret (as  Bruce did).
>> But I supect in many cases they would probably agree  to it being made
>> public in the event of their death or them  becoming incapacitated.
>> Code like Bruch wrote is unlikely to be  commerically useful to his
>> family, so he might as well make it  public. But it may be too late.
>>
>> I wonder if there is a  technical solution to this. You encrypt your
>> secret source code,  giving the encrypted code to anyone that wants it.
>> You give 3  people you trust part of the decryption key. Any two parts
>> are  sufficient to decrypt the code. Would something like that be
>>  acceptable to individuals that make money from code, but don't
>>  realistically believe it will survice commerically without  them.
>>
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> time-nuts mailing  list -- time-nuts at febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to
>>  https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow  the instructions there.
>>
>  _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list  -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to  
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the  instructions  there.
>

_______________________________________________
time-nuts  mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to  
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the  instructions there.



More information about the time-nuts mailing list