| Per Westermark 03/15/10 01:37 Read: 194 times Sweden |
#174145 - Yes Responding to: James Hinnant's previous message |
On one hand, a file format can be undocumented, in which case it is hard for competitors to create compatible files, or to read existing files.
On the other hand, a manufacturer can request royalty payments for selling information about the file format, or from companies that are creating compatible files by having reverse-engineered the information. Guess why so few applications can process the classical, pre-XML, Excel or Word documents? A file format is a form of pattern, so copying the file format is similar to copying the look-and-feel of an application, and may represent a copyright violation. If you are really unlucky, a file format may also make use of patented algorithms. Remember the GIF file format, where Unisys took a very long time until they started to request royalties for the use of the LZW compression algorithm. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| SDCC download | Erik Malund | 03/05/10 11:53 |
| Here you go... | Robert Revens | 03/05/10 12:13 |
| newest | Jan Waclawek | 03/05/10 12:30 |
Has any effort gone into documentation?  | Richard Erlacher | 03/05/10 18:20 |
| documentation | Jan Waclawek | 03/06/10 03:16 |
| Just to add... | Robert Revens | 03/06/10 04:02 |
| more howto-s | Jan Waclawek | 03/06/10 05:13 |
| the first 'oddity' is ... | Erik Malund | 03/06/10 06:46 |
| I think you dreamt that one eric | Jez Smith | 03/06/10 07:27 |
| No - it's a well-known Gotcha! in SDCC! | Andy Neil | 03/06/10 11:46 |
| Reference: ISRs (or prototypes) must be in same file as main | Andy Neil | 03/07/10 01:04 |
| linking | Jan Waclawek | 03/06/10 14:36 |
| I see it not correct | Erik Malund | 03/06/10 14:51 |
| I don't understand | Jan Waclawek | 03/06/10 15:04 |
| what is it you do not understand? | Erik Malund | 03/07/10 07:11 |
| Does it not recognise... | Andy Neil | 03/07/10 07:25 |
| Surely not... | Robert Revens | 03/07/10 08:42 |
| "magic" | Jan Waclawek | 03/07/10 10:44 |
| That's not the fault of 'C'!! | Andy Neil | 03/07/10 13:14 |
| highly unusal, but | Erik Malund | 03/07/10 18:42 |
| Try java etc | Oliver Sedlacek | 03/08/10 07:54 |
| I now see why is this confusing | Jan Waclawek | 03/07/10 10:27 |
| emulation? | Andy Peters | 03/11/10 15:53 |
| Source-level debug | Robert Revens | 03/11/10 16:15 |
| symbol information | Maarten Brock | 03/12/10 04:05 |
| re: symbol information | Andy Peters | 03/15/10 18:40 |
| hex-file download? | Maarten Brock | 03/16/10 05:46 |
hex vs omf | Andy Peters | 03/16/10 12:08 |
| Keil proprietary stuff? | Andy Neil | 03/12/10 05:01 |
| extended omf51 | Juergen Christoph | 03/12/10 07:11 |
| omf51 vs cdb | Jan Waclawek | 03/15/10 16:48 |
| proprietary file format? | James Hinnant | 03/15/10 01:22 |
| I don't see why not | Andy Neil | 03/15/10 01:33 |
| So, what do *you* mean by, "proprietary" ? | Andy Neil | 03/16/10 02:15 |
| AutoCAD | Per Westermark | 03/16/10 03:15 |
| Yes | Per Westermark | 03/15/10 01:37 |
| patentable vs proprietary | James Hinnant | 03/15/10 23:39 |
| Proprietary is a questin of ownership, not protection | Per Westermark | 03/16/10 01:06 |
| bouncing email | Maarten Brock | 03/07/10 14:38 |