Me too, this was my favourite of the countless Gauntlet clones, given that it added some cool ideas: element magic which affected enemies differently, a sidekick you could conjure, and probably more cool things I can't recall at the moment.
I find your reasoning very strange, if anything, GPL ensures that the 'ideas' are instead made available for anyone to use, provided that they in turn do the same.
If anything would be a 'tumor' by your reasoning around ideas, it would be proprietary software, which is what GPL prevents.
>They've developed it and it was adopted by everyone and their mother for being good and cheap FS.
No, it was adopted in order to have Windows compability, which you need given the Windows desktop monopoly and since Windows refuses to support any filesystem it won't get royalties on.
Cisco is also a h264 patent holder, which may have given them a better licensing deal.
Beyond this, Cisco is part of the 'Alliance for Open Media', consisting of Google, Cisco, Intel, Netflix, Amazon, Microsoft, Mozilla (the latter funding Daala) who are building a new royalty free codec for their needs based upon vp10, but which will make use of any useful technology their members have access to.
>Why do you suppose that is? It's infuriating to see someone else make a lot of money with something you developed for free?
The argument as I recall it from back then was that they did not want to hurt the arcade business, the manufacturers of arcade games would suffer if instead of purchasing their arcade machines, their potential customers would load up a PC with MAME and rig it to a coin-slot/cabinet.
Also the MAME (and MESS which is the same for computers and consoles/handheld) has a policy of not emulating arcades/etc until they are no longer supported/out of circulation.
And typically longer compile times.
Most variables are split into ("phi") variants, for each assignment, and many more costly optimization steps are now possible.
True, an increase in optimizations will likely mean longer compile times, on the other hand, with better optimized code, the compiler itself (as it's written in Go) will also perform better, which may negate some of the increase in compile time.
One of the alluring things of SSA form is that many optimizations are much faster to execute on the form. The costly part is to raise the SSA form in the first place which in the standard implementation requires one to build a costly dominator tree.
You don't need to add every optimization known to man to a compiler, so you can sometimes keep a few of the important ones and then skip every other optimization. A priori, I'd guess SSA would speed up the compiler, which means you end up having a better budget for the more expensive optimizations.
As stated in [1] they use a variant of "Simple and Efficient Construction of Static Single Assignment Form" [2], which does not require a dominator tree (or a liveness analysis).
I think Wirth with his Pascal compiler had this as a rule. If you added an optimization (which takes additional time), it must speed up the compiler enough that compilation times are not longer.
It depends on the compiler. The great thing about SSA conversion is that you only have to do it once, whereas a classical def/use-chaining analysis may have to be redone many times in an old-style optimizer.
SSA is a conversion of the program into a representation of its data flow. I've used it in multiple compilers and found it to be a big win for easing other analyses (e.g., induction variable recognition become trivial) and reducing bugs due to the update problem.
I'm going to go with the actual author of the licence (Danese), and not just because she authored it but because the idea that Sun management, seeing themselves struggle against Linux, would allow Linux to use their prized ZFS and DTrace, and thus offer even less reason to choose Solaris over Linux is simply insane from any kind of business point.
And not even now do we have anyone arguing here that CDDL is not GPL-incompatible, people accept that and Linus refuses to merge any CDDL code in to mainline, what is being discussed here is if ZFS counts as a derivative (and thus has to be GPL compatible) when it runs as a kernel module in Linux kernel space.
