 | | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
Hello everybody, there has been a lot of discussion about the Business 2.0 article in their forums, on Slashdot and here at LUGNET. I followed all of them closely until Tuesday afternoon, but rather less so in the days since. I also received several (...) (23 years ago, 13-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | trig-functions through CORDIC
|
|
If there are amateurs interested in using trig-functions under legOS have a look at the following page: (URL) algorithms used are called CORDIC. You'll find all the information and explanation on our site. What is especially interesting is the fact (...) (23 years ago, 13-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
(...) Dennis, I do agree that Lego has been very nice about this; in my first post, I stated that their stance on these matters was one of the things that rekindled my Lego addiction. I admired their action (or lack thereof) as far as Mindstorms was (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX_COMPILER define
|
|
(...) references to (...) the CygWin (...) the legOS (...) absence (...) What RCX_COMPILER does is to add an optimization inside GCC for ISR on RCX platform. GCC without RCX_COMPILER patch should compile without problems any project. You should only (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
(...) OK, lets not make a mountain out of a molehill here. LEGO very clearly and often stated in that letter that they encourage the creation and use of our third party OS's and such. What they (rightly) wish to protect is the dillution of their (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company position on third-party programs for LEGO MINDSTORMS
|
|
(...) [snipped Clarification from the LEGO(R) MINDSTORMStm team] Thanks for the clarification, Tomas. (...) I'd also suggest visiting legos.sourceforge.net, and sending the letter to the maintainers of that site (if you haven't already), as although (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
FYI, there is now a posting in lugnet.lego.announce that should help to clarify this issue: (URL) set to FUT lugnet.lego.direct because of some rules (that I still don't quite get) about where official messages can be posted and followed-up to, but (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
Ok, I agree with the *possibility* of the name being a problem, but I am more concerned about the hacks themselves being contested instead. However, LegOS is NOT for commercial purposes, so that should be a factor to consider here. I wouldn't be AS (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
(...) In the US, at least, a trademark *must* be defended, or the company loses it. If legOS does, in fact, infringe on their trademark, they would have had to defend it pretty quickly or that usage would pass into the public domain. Or something (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
(...) I concur. If I manufactured a new extra-cushiony disk storage system that used *really* tiny sponges for support, and I called it Micro-Soft, I'm sure I'd get a letter. This particular case has the added spin of stepping soundly into the "LEGO (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
(...) So, if they had sued him 2.5 years ago, you would have supported them? Just wondering. It's because of thinking like this that most companies would have sued him long ago... Troy PS: I thought it was just common sense, atleast around here, (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
The way I read the article it didn't seem that they were so much upset that he had come up with the new OS, but rather that he had named it legOS. No matter how you look at it, or what excuse he can come up for choosing that name, it is pushing the (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
(...) I agree with you, Jürgen. It seems that we have to contend with taht viewpoint though. Hopefully if any of tyhe new product line doesn't do as well as expected, we will not see some genius in the company decide to go after people who add value (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
(...) I think this is speculation by the author of the article. Apart from the issue about names and trademarks, for me this article shows an extremely irritating attitude towards customers, sue people as soon as they use something in a different (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Instructions for LegOS USB support
|
|
(...) As for lejos, we are waiting to get our hands on a USB tower. Jürgen (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX 3.0 and legOS 1.2.4
|
|
This is copyied from "Mindstorms Not Just a Kid's Toy" by Paul Wallich in IEEE Spectrum September 2001: "With version 2.0 of the RCX firmware due this fall, the original hardware may have gone as far as its designers can take it, and what directions (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: EmuLegOs lives again
|
|
Hi Luis Is it possible to make legOS homepage better? I think that's too simple and dull, don't you think so? then can you modify something in your HOWTOs when you do this updating? for example, in (URL) this code seems isn't compiled in legOS (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: EmuLegOs lives again
|
|
This /rocks/. Hopefully I'll update the Lego and legOS HOWTOs to point to this soon. Luis (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
|
(...) see (...) I think it's similar enough to LEGO that they'd have had a reasonable case if they'd fought it earlier. But now it's debatable whether they'd have any case at all. ROSCO (IANAL) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Instructions for LegOS USB support
|
|
(...) I'd be interested in tackling Linux, but we can't get the new towers in Australia yet 8?( ROSCO (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics)
|
