bob wrote:Anyone aware of an OS/X timestamp for ICC? My office machine is now a 4-core iMac and in trying to get things set up for ICC, I ran into this issue. I run Crafty on one node of our 12-core cluster, but I can't run xboard and such as we have none of that installed on the actual compute nodes. I generally just run xboard on my office box and have it ssh to the cluster to run Crafty. But I can not find a working time stamp. They have a very old apple os timestamp on their download page, but it is for the way older power pc chip based Macs...
bob wrote:Anyone aware of an OS/X timestamp for ICC? My office machine is now a 4-core iMac and in trying to get things set up for ICC, I ran into this issue. I run Crafty on one node of our 12-core cluster, but I can't run xboard and such as we have none of that installed on the actual compute nodes. I generally just run xboard on my office box and have it ssh to the cluster to run Crafty. But I can not find a working time stamp. They have a very old apple os timestamp on their download page, but it is for the way older power pc chip based Macs...
Oh good, Louis beat me to it. Unfortunately I don't remember where I found it. I think it was stolen from some other GUI package... ICC sure doesn't make it easy to find.
JoshPettus wrote:Oh good, Louis beat me to it. Unfortunately I don't remember where I found it. I think it was stolen from some other GUI package... ICC sure doesn't make it easy to find.
NO they don't. I probably should put together a zip with linux and osx timestamp/timeseal and stick it on my web page where it will be easy to link to.
JoshPettus wrote:Oh good, Louis beat me to it. Unfortunately I don't remember where I found it. I think it was stolen from some other GUI package... ICC sure doesn't make it easy to find.
Then, how do you know the legal status of this part of the software?
Because it's Timestamp. It's from ICC either way. Even if it were some reverse engineering, done by the author of the app. (i highly doubt, more likely they got in contact with ICC) ICC's control takes precedent.
It would be just the same as if i took some x86 compilation of fruit.
JoshPettus wrote:Because it's Timestamp. It's from ICC either way. Even if it were some reverse engineering, done by the author of the app. (i highly doubt, more likely they got in contact with ICC) ICC's control takes precedent.
It would be just the same as if i took some x86 compilation of fruit.
So you took the liberty to "infer a license", in the absence of an actual license.
PS: fruit is GPL, and therefore different. For example, fruit doesn't allow a x86 binary to be distributed just like that.
JoshPettus wrote:Because it's Timestamp. It's from ICC either way. Even if it were some reverse engineering, done by the author of the app. (i highly doubt, more likely they got in contact with ICC) ICC's control takes precedent.
It would be just the same as if i took some x86 compilation of fruit.
So you took the liberty to "infer a license", in the absence of an actual license.
PS: fruit is GPL, and therefore different. For example, fruit doesn't allow a x86 binary to be distributed just like that.
I find NO license agreement from ICC. They simply have a directory with lots of different executables. Which is exactly what I remembered the last time I had looked for something for Linux. I think it safe to assume he is not violating any sort of license since there doesn't appear to be one. Several GUI authors distribute timestamp with their code, further validating this.
I haven't seen one either, and thus I can only infer from what everyone else is doing. Why would it be in the interest of ICC to put a limit on timestamp? They are a tellnet server, though they have their Official GUI that isn't their goal. The more have access to them the better for them.
Second what do you mean about GPL with fruit? By all means, please correct me if I'm wrong here. How would distributing it with xboard be against it's License? My understanding from what I have read, it wouldn't. They both are of the same license. I know the license prevents me from make changes to the source code without distributing my changes complete with the original source code and license. AFIK, an executable of the original fruit 2.1 can be distributed freely so long as the license is included. The preamble of GPL states I may do so. In fact all winboard packages and many other GUI's come with an executable of fruit.
If this is wrong, I should let Harm know. I only have it there because it is included with his winboard packages. (as with timestamp)
JoshPettus wrote:I haven't seen one either, and thus I can only infer from what everyone else is doing. Why would it be in the interest of ICC to put a limit on timestamp? They are a tellnet server, though they have their Official GUI that isn't their goal. The more have access to them the better for them.
Second what do you mean about GPL with fruit? By all means, please correct me if I'm wrong here. How would distributing it with xboard be against it's License? My understanding from what I have read, it wouldn't. They both are of the same license. I know the license prevents me from make changes to the source code without distributing my changes complete with the original source code and license. AFIK, an executable of the original fruit 2.1 can be distributed freely so long as the license is included and a link to where the source can be found is provided. The preamble of GPL states I may do so. In fact all winboard packages and many other GUI's come with an executable of fruit.
If this is wrong, I should let Harm know. I only have it there because it is included with his winboard packages. (as with timestamp)
If there are no other places the source can be found, then the source must be included. At present, said link is WBEC Ridderkerk, but since Leo is no longer doing WBEC I doubt it will last forever. Probably best to err on the side of caution.
Unfortunately I don't remember where I found it. I think it was stolen from some other GUI package... ICC sure doesn't make it easy to find.