How to Open *.Fas

[mdbdesign]

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

 

Hold what????

[ReMark]

Breath.

 

An inhalation or exhalation of air from the lungs.

 

I guess there is no good air up in Canada. You're sucking a nitrous-oxide mixture from a cylinder you stole from the local dive shop?

[mdbdesign]

:lol:

[alanjt]

Hai here Balaji.May i know how to open and Edit or View the Code from the *.Fas??And how to find out the *.Fas Command(LIke i want to know the Inside of the *.Fas Command) ???Is it Possibel?

This just reaffirms why the author compiled the code before releasing.

[digger]

i am not a coder, but i collect lisp routines as a hobby.

i only know enough that if i have a conflict with a command, i can change it or even change hard coded layers, colors, etc.

unless it is a very special program, i end up throwing away .fas files.

i have seen a lot of programs that are free or shareware and are encrypted (autocad protected file).

a lot of the authors cannot be reached because their web site no longer exists and email addresses are no longer good. Perhaps they have gone on to bigger and better things or even died.

decrypters are easily found for the encrypted programs.

it is about time for a .fas de-compiler to come along.

or, until then, perhaps authors should at least include a way to change the command.

ref:

http://bellsouthpwp2.net/C/a/CadTools/Free/AutoCAD/CadToolChest-Alias.html

 

i have the utmost respect and admiration for the authors at cadtutor and other sites that share their autolisp programs free of any restrictions.

i don't care much for coders that write a code to do a simple task, put a use counter or other restriction on it, compile it, and then try to sell it for $5 or $10.

[rkmcswain]

it is about time for a .fas de-compiler to come along.

No, it's not. The author of the code compiled it for a reason.

 

or, until then, perhaps authors should at least include a way to change the command.

Why? Again, if the code is compiled, and the source code is not also provided, then the author doesn't want anyone to have the source.

The reasons are endless and unimportant.

 

i have the utmost respect and admiration for the authors at cadtutor and other sites that share their autolisp programs free of any restrictions.

i don't care much for coders that write a code to do a simple task, put a use counter or other restriction on it, compile it, and then try to sell it for $5 or $10.

 

Simple solution, don't use code that falls into your latter description - stick with the free stuff.

[Se7en]

i am not a coder, but i collect lisp routines as a hobby.

i only know enough that if i have a conflict with a command, i can change it or even change hard coded layers, colors, etc.

unless it is a very special program, i end up throwing away .fas files.

i have seen a lot of programs that are free or shareware and are encrypted (autocad protected file).

a lot of the authors cannot be reached because their web site no longer exists and email addresses are no longer good. Perhaps they have gone on to bigger and better things or even died.

decrypters are easily found for the encrypted programs.

it is about time for a .fas de-compiler to come along.

or, until then, perhaps authors should at least include a way to change the command.

ref:

http://bellsouthpwp2.net/C/a/CadTools/Free/AutoCAD/CadToolChest-Alias.html

 

i have the utmost respect and admiration for the authors at cadtutor and other sites that share their autolisp programs free of any restrictions.

i don't care much for coders that write a code to do a simple task, put a use counter or other restriction on it, compile it, and then try to sell it for $5 or $10.

 

What Operating System do you use (not at work; its obvious that you need or have to use Microsoft Windows because of AutoCAD)?

[Se7en]

@rkmcswain

Ive heard that code here is slapped with the GPL (GPL V3 or later, no less). Since you are a Moderator, can you verify this?

[alanjt]

i have the utmost respect and admiration for the authors at cadtutor and other sites that share their autolisp programs free of any restrictions.

If you actually respected them, you wouldn't have made the next comment.

 

i don't care much for coders that write a code to do a simple task, put a use counter or other restriction on it, compile it, and then try to sell it for $5 or $10.

Why not? If a person codes something and deems it worthy of a few dollars and it saves you time, why is it so wrong for them to ask for a little remuneration for their time? Hell, at amounts of 5-10 dollars, they're probably just trying to keep their website up (not free).

 

Basically, you only like it when you can benefit from others' hard work when it's free for you.

[Lee Mac]

i am not a coder

 

Then why do you want to see the source code so much anyway?

 

i don't care much for coders that write a code to do a simple task, put a use counter or other restriction on it, compile it, and then try to sell it for $5 or $10.

 

In other fields you'd expect to have to pay for a service/product in return, so why should programming be any different? If the author has spent many hours of their own time writing a program, what is so wrong with a little renumeration?

 

The term 'freeloader' springs to mind

[CADTutor]

@rkmcswain

Ive heard that code here is slapped with the GPL (GPL V3 or later, no less). Since you are a Moderator, can you verify this?

 

Authors of code posted here at CADTutor are free to apply whatever copyright restrictions (or freedoms) that they see fit. In most cases, no explicit copyright is claimed and we should assume that the author is happy to have their code distributed freely on the understanding that the usual courtesies are observed; namely that they are always credited as the author of the code and that others should not pass it off as their own work - that is known as plagiarism. However, coders may wish to explicitly state that their work is distributed under a specific copyright. I personally favour the Creative Commons licences because you can build your own specific license built on standard criteria, but authors are free to choose any other form of copyright.

 

In short, there is no "blanket" copyright implied for work published at CADTutor (GPL or otherwise, other than the general principles outlined above); it is up to the author to claim copyright if they wish. I would encourage and support the right of authors to declare their preferred form of copyright in order to avoid misunderstandings in the future.

 

As always, I am completely open to suggestions. If the community feels that CADTutor SHOULD have a basic low-level of expressley stated copyright to protect authors, I am happy to consider it.

[David Bethel]

I've always gone by this and have never had anyone dispute it:

 

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

 

 

-David

[Se7en]

@CADTutor

Oh no don't even think of applying a blanket copyright (Don't even think of taking that responsibility upon yourself--no way! I would NEVER suggest that!).

 

I prefer the BSD lic myself--for legal reasons--and i wouldnt blink an eye at the `plagiarism'. I would only recommend that you remove (or change the wording) the reference to the GPL in the "terms of use" sicky thread for your safety. The GPL is like a virus.

 

EDIT: I should say either: "sanity", or "own good". instead of "safety" because i only mean that you dont personally need to deal with any dealings with code posted by others.

 

...I have to go (deadline), but i will post this as-is (I haven't really explained myself very well) so please take this post with a grain of salt right now .

Edited October 20, 2010 by Se7en

[digger]

i signed in a while ago and spent 15 minutes replying to all your comments on my post#25 and when i hit the post button i was directed to th log in page. i am too pi$$ed to reconstruct my reply but i wanted all of you to know i did not ignore your questions or snide remarks.

 

digger

[CADTutor]

i signed in a while ago and spent 15 minutes replying to all your comments on my post#25 and when i hit the post button i was directed to th log in page. i am too pi$$ed to reconstruct my reply but i wanted all of you to know i did not ignore your questions or snide remarks.

 

digger

 

To avoid this happening again in the future, make sure you have the "Remember Me" option checked when you login.

[CADTutor]

@CADTutor

I should say either: "sanity", or "own good". instead of "safety" because i only mean that you dont personally need to deal with any dealings with code posted by others.

 

Yes, perhaps that should be amended. The intention of that statement in the Archive section was to state that we accept no liability for the published routines in that section, it was not intended as a statement of copyright.

[Se7en]

Yes, perhaps that should be amended. The intention of that statement in the Archive section was to state that we accept no liability for the published routines in that section, it was not intended as a statement of copyright.

 

Perfect. Say that.

 

I, personally, would remove the GPL from the conversation all together. The GPL is a nasty, genius, groundbreaking, wonderful, horrible, etc., etc. piece of work. And like i said before i prefer the BSD license for its simplicity and what it represents (I believe in "Free" not "Free for now" or "Free with conditions").

[CADTutor]

OK, terms of use has been updated and reference to GPL removed.

[Lee Mac]

I, personally, would remove the GPL from the conversation all together. The GPL is a nasty, genius, groundbreaking, wonderful, horrible, etc., etc. piece of work. And like i said before i prefer the BSD license for its simplicity and what it represents (I believe in "Free" not "Free for now" or "Free with conditions").

 

Just curious, I've only briefly read through the GPL - but what, in your opinion, makes it so dangerous?

 

Lee

[Se7en]

The danger comes from ignorance; the GPL isnt at all dangerous. Its the "use of" and peoples "assumptions" that is/are.

 

I don't like the GPL because it restricts what can be done. For example (brief)...

 

If Jane writes fooxx and releases under the GPL.

Bob, forks fooxx and wants to sell, or give away, fooxx2.0 because now its "better" however he has included some proprietary company info in the code (a function, a formula, i don't know; make something up) but now he cant because of the GPL. The GPL says that he can sell binaries but he has to provide upon request the source. So fooxx2.0 cant be released and we then never get floating cars. However, if Jane released fooxx under the BSD, all would be cool for Bob and us (bob could sell, or give away, bin's and we can use fooxx2.0)

 

 

I dont hate the GPL or would ever not use it; i would just put serious thought into it.