By the way, sometimes, a free license will do. As I discovered, I was trying to be too unique on my program. I don't have to be that unique yet...

Forgot to say, I'm also trying to focus (for a little goal), on helping more people in the forums, when I can. When I can't, sorry to be so needy...

I haven't posted on the forum yet, this isn't made to replace that post, but I think I borked my scripts. I don't want to post there yet, because I want to troubleshoot, so I'm not posting "junk". But here, I can say it, because this is more like notes to me, to remember. If other people want to interact some, great!

Sorry for the late reply. I just finished what should be my final degree for now. Now, in the inbetween time, I have time for some more home work. Not "homework", but "home work".

I told you though, that this was NOT the same as C or C++. That's one difference in the languages...

I guess it's too hard for now, without opening a thread, to add C-Like escape sequences to the STRINGV. However, after further testing, IT DOES NOT NEED IT. Why? The ASM command accepts a string_expression, which can be $"{STRINGV}". The $ operator is the string operator, which will add quotes to it which will NOT be stripped. So, in the example subroutine, all you have to do is use that synatax and it will come out to work! YES!!!!

Please leave some comments if u can as you browse around the site.

It seems as if every time I sit to program in my language, I find a new bug. Yes, this is well tested. But apparently it's not bug free. The next bug to fix is I need escape sequences to work inside string values in PNFHA. Otherwise it's not always possible to write in PNFASM from it.

I found this while implementing the patch_0 subroutine in PNFHA.

I just got my final version with all the bugfixes put out. (Not final ever, just can go at a slower pace now). There are now no "known" bugs in the program. Everything works as it is supposed to as far as I can tell.

The last 2 instructions were PATCH (to fix the bug dynamically, since I needed backwards compatibility now), and NATIVE, for running native subroutines.

Because of the last instruction, now we can do ANYTHING an App can do on the OS. Note that the LINUX version is behind a little. Why? My first step is to make it work on Windows, my next, on Linux. Why? Just because I prefer Windows and G++ as a development environment for now.

P.P.S. - Don't worry. For now you can always write PNFASM from PNFHA.

P.S. - At least at the PNFASM level...

After this minor update I will do, it will finally have all known bugs fixed and have a way to do everything your OS can do with an App.

With the same settings as I usually use for Mandriva Linux 2010.1, the graphical environment won't even work out of the box anymore. Yes, I could troubleshoot, but for now, I don't want to. It's too much trouble to troubleshoot something like this at this point. Mageia Linux isn't even ready to be a client yet!

P.S. - The licensing questions are about the programming tasks.

Yes. I agree. The more I study it, the more I'm unhappy with my current version of my liscense as well, though I am very happy with the way of versioning I have come up with for programs/documents. My versioning is a little bit different than most peoples, but at some point I will make conversions to and from ordinary "Linux/Microsoft" style versioning.

I'm going to leave the topic entirely for now of my particular language. If people would have had interest in continuing, I'd have taken them through all the tools, but maybe it's not ready for that yet. I expected a first version, no matter what it contained, to "flop" anyway, but I'd get feedback to make it better. Here it's not even released past a development phase, and I'm finding it's flopping now. So I will take that into consideration, and as mentioned before, I will change the main topic of this blog again. Whether you participate or not, and I might go back to using the forums and the blog now for that, as I can see some questions popping up in my mind.

I will change my topic of interest to liscensing, and US copyright laws, with touches on international copyright laws. Hopefully there aren't any state laws to worry about here... By the way, I can never seem to spell any type of liscense word right... So I'll start by modifying my liscense again, and post the liscense alone.

I DON'T know when it gets to the right point yet whether I will go to a GPL style liscense or not at this point. I'm very unhappy with the type of liscense I've created, but am happy with some concepts, which is what makes me think that tweaking it is the way to go. I will NOT put the liscense or any liscense under a liscense. Treat the liscense as public domain literature, if possible. Feel free to copy directly or indirectly in any way, just don't do anything such as copyright it in a way that would make anybody else not able to use it (maybe I do want to put the liscense under a liscense??? But then what about the liscense's liscense???) Anyway, as long as someone did not prevent anyone else from using the liscense as a liscense it's fine... Steal it for your direct modification purposes if you wish (not really stealing then, if I'm giving you permission). Anyway, an interesting topic that I will probably want to cover later on too.

However, for educational purposes, I'll pretend like I'm sure like I want to use this liscense. Then I will try to make myself happy with it's effects. Maybe I will be happy and like it. Maybe I won't. I'm not a lawyer, just someone who can program a computer. I can't hire lawyers to create it, as that would take funds I don't have.

I would like other programmers to get involved with creating this liscense (not directly creating, just giving hints). Then perhaps I'll write something the free software foundation will like to use.

I do want my program to be a definite type of free software, or something very similar to it, maybe an entirely new type. Nevertheless, it would NOT do to have software not free enough. Not the software I'm creating. The fact that it doesn't quite sound like it matches this definition makes me a little unhappy. I simply want to be a little bit more specific than something like what I've read of the GPL. By the way, I use many liscenses, and try to follow them all. It just depends on the software, what it does, and whether I need it or not, and whether I can live with their specifics of their liscense. But I don't want mine to be propetery in the same sense, as, say, Microsoft, or Unix was. I would hope that it will not fit that definition at all.

My eventual OS that I want to write, my "BIG" OS, (which would be written in what this language PNF becomes), will HAVE to have it's own special liscense, whether it's considered to be propetory or not. Why? That's because it will have to make some rules about what I call liscense file. These programs (for which the exact language has yet to be written or it's syntax thought about), will replace the standard way of liscensing a program.

I provide the tools, programmers and "users" of my system provide the implementation. Hopefully it's a good one and one I agree with, but if not, that's the risk of providing the tools.

Here is a brief explanation of the concept of liscense files:

There would have to be rules written into the liscense of the OS, that would make or double make the act of getting around the liscense files, and using them for harmful purposes, effectively illegal. Other than that, it would want to follow whatever pattern most of my software follows with what you can and can't do with it.

So if that's going to become a reality, I need to learn about liscenses, and learn more about them. So IF for NO OTHER REASON, I need to study liscenses and go further with the development of the one I have, whether I use them or not for this simple software. It's without further ado, that I learn these things beginning now.