"Numerical Recipes in C" code

[Abhi]

Hi..
I wanted the C source code in machine readable format for the book
"Numerical Recipes in C".
I got hold of the pdf version of the book somehow. Does anyone have the
complete C code of the book?. If yes,..can you please mail me the code
or somehow share it with me?.
With Regards,
Abhishek S

[Jack Klein]

On 18 Jun 2006 15:03:31 -0700, "Abhi" <ab*************@gmail.com>
wrote in comp.lang.c:

Hi..
Hi, yourself. The first thing you need to learn about is proper
usenet netiquette. Your post does not belong in comp.std.c at all, it
is a group for discussion about the ISO C international standard,
past, present, and future. Second, you multiposted, that is post the
same message to more than one group (two that I have seen so far)
separately. The proper method is cross-posting, after you make sure
(which you did not) that your message is topical in all the groups
involved.
I wanted the C source code in machine readable format for the book
"Numerical Recipes in C".
I want a billion dollars, want to trade?
I got hold of the pdf version of the book somehow. Does anyone have the
complete C code of the book?. If yes,..can you please mail me the code
or somehow share it with me?.
Oh, sorry, I want my million dollars legally. You seem to want
something illegally. Consider the web page
http://library.lanl.gov/numerical/bookcpdf.html, where the book is
available for electronic viewing, with permission of the copyright
holders. Did you notice this paragraph:

"Thanks to special permission from Cambridge University Press, we are
able to bring you the complete Numerical Recipes in C book On-Line! To
utilize this resource, you will need an Adobe Acrobat viewer linked as
a helper program to your web browser. Permission is granted by the
copyright owners for users of this resource to make one paper copy of
these Acrobat files for their own personal use. Further reproduction,
or the extraction of, or copying of, machine readable files to any
server computer, is strictly prohibited. This on-line resource is not
intended as a substitute for purchasing the book, or for obtaining a
license for the use of Numerical Recipes source code."

And then just a little farther down the page:

"Downloads of the Numerical Recipes source code in machine-readable
format are not available as part of this free resource. For
information on downloads, please go to the Numerical Recipes On-Line
Software Store."

I am pretty sure that you have seen this information, on this page or
one very much like it. Very few people use the phrase "machine
readable" in casual conversation or correspondence these days.

Apparently you are aware that the source code is not free, and should
be purchased for legal use. And apparently, you don't care, and
instead are trying to illegally steal copyrighted intellectual
property.

Most regulars in these two groups, and hopefully any others that you
posted this to, are very negative on the idea of stealing other
people's work, particularly their source code. That is because many
of the regulars here make a living as working programmers, and don't
want their work stolen either.
With Regards,
Abhishek S

Thanks to Google's archive, you are now on record forever as someone
who wants to steal intellectual property. Consider the implications
of that.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html

[Nelu]

"Abhi" <ab*************@gmail.com> writes:

Hi..
I wanted the C source code in machine readable format for the book
"Numerical Recipes in C".
I got hold of the pdf version of the book somehow. Does anyone have the
complete C code of the book?. If yes,..can you please mail me the code
or somehow share it with me?.
With Regards,
Abhishek S

I don't thing "Numerica Recipes" are free and neither is the machine
readable source code. You can buy them from http://www.nr.com, and if
I'm right, anyone giving you the code may commit an illegality. If you
consider buying them make sure you get the C sources.

--
Ioan - Ciprian Tandau
tandau _at_ freeshell _dot_ org (hope it's not too late)
(... and that it still works...)

[Francis Glassborow]

In article <4b********************************@4ax.com>, Jack Klein
<ja*******@spamcop.net> writes

Thanks to Google's archive, you are now on record forever as someone
who wants to steal intellectual property. Consider the implications
of that.

And in case the OP does not realise, it makes him tainted for all
employment as a C programmer. Suppose he works on what becomes an
extremely successful piece of software that uses one or more algorithms
that are covered in that book (note the algorithms are not copyright,
only the source code is). The owners of the IP for Numerical Recipes now
have evidence that someone working on the development has breached their
IP and because of the success of the project it is worth pursuing
royalties.

--
Francis Glassborow ACCU
Author of 'You Can Do It!' and "You Can Program in C++"
see http://www.spellen.org/youcandoit
For project ideas and contributions: http://www.spellen.org/youcandoit/projects

[Skarmander]

Jack Klein wrote:
<snip>

Apparently you are aware that the source code is not free, and should
be purchased for legal use. And apparently, you don't care, and
instead are trying to illegally steal copyrighted intellectual
property.

The phrase smells pleonastic. And I'm still not comfortable with "stealing"
as a synonym for "disenfranchising someone of their exclusive right to
distribute", but that's probably just me. Calling it "stealing" does convey
the moral reproach more succinctly.

S.

[Morris Dovey]

Skarmander (in 44***********************@news.xs4all.nl) said:

| Jack Klein wrote:
| <snip>
|| Apparently you are aware that the source code is not free, and
|| should be purchased for legal use. And apparently, you don't
|| care, and instead are trying to illegally steal copyrighted
|| intellectual property.

| The phrase smells pleonastic. And I'm still not comfortable with
| "stealing" as a synonym for "disenfranchising someone of their
| exclusive right to distribute", but that's probably just me.
| Calling it "stealing" does convey the moral reproach more
| succinctly.

Hmm... Given that the party with the exclusive right to distribute has
attached a price tag, with what other synonym would you be
comfortable?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

[Skarmander]

Morris Dovey wrote:

Skarmander (in 44***********************@news.xs4all.nl) said:

| Jack Klein wrote:
| <snip>
|| Apparently you are aware that the source code is not free, and
|| should be purchased for legal use. And apparently, you don't
|| care, and instead are trying to illegally steal copyrighted
|| intellectual property.

| The phrase smells pleonastic. And I'm still not comfortable with
| "stealing" as a synonym for "disenfranchising someone of their
| exclusive right to distribute", but that's probably just me.
| Calling it "stealing" does convey the moral reproach more
| succinctly.

Hmm... Given that the party with the exclusive right to distribute has
attached a price tag, with what other synonym would you be
comfortable?

"If it hadn't been copied it would have been sold"? It doesn't quite work
that way. Copying may very well result in lost revenue, but I'd still prefer
my stealing to be taking something away that was possessed in the first place.

In any case, this is off topic, and nobody here is arguing the point that
copying this is somehow not wrong (I hope). Given that, we should probably
save the fine points of what to call it exactly for another day.

S.

[David Wade]

"Nelu" <sp*******@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b1*************@ukato.freeshell.org...

"Abhi" <ab*************@gmail.com> writes:

Hi..
I wanted the C source code in machine readable format for the book
"Numerical Recipes in C".
I got hold of the pdf version of the book somehow. Does anyone have the
complete C code of the book?. If yes,..can you please mail me the code
or somehow share it with me?.
With Regards,
Abhishek S
I don't thing "Numerica Recipes" are free and neither is the machine
readable source code. You can buy them from http://www.nr.com, and if
I'm right, anyone giving you the code may commit an illegality. If you
consider buying them make sure you get the C sources.

Perhaps the requester resides in a juristriction where copyright does not
apply, or is not enforced...
--
Ioan - Ciprian Tandau
tandau _at_ freeshell _dot_ org (hope it's not too late)
(... and that it still works...)

[Walter Roberson]

In article <z2**************@robinton.demon.co.uk>,
Francis Glassborow <fr*****@robinton.demon.co.uk> wrote:

And in case the OP does not realise, it makes him tainted for all
employment as a C programmer. Suppose he works on what becomes an
extremely successful piece of software that uses one or more algorithms
that are covered in that book (note the algorithms are not copyright,
only the source code is). The owners of the IP for Numerical Recipes now
have evidence that someone working on the development has breached their
IP and because of the success of the project it is worth pursuing
royalties.

The NR people appear to rely heavily on copyright in their license
terms, but in their online information do not appear to mention
patents. In most countries, algorithms are not patentable; in
the USA in particular, algorithms -are- patentable (but I'd need to
look further to see whether the publication of the first NR book
was before or after that change to US patent law.)

The NR terms explicitly talk about translation into other computer
languages, and indicate that they would consider such a translation
to be a "derived work" for the purposes of copyright law.

My personal belief is that if such a point were to come to court, that
there would be a diversity of rulings in different jurisdictions; I
suspect that in some courts, whether a "translation" into a different
computer language would be considered a "derived work" or not would
depend upon the degree of difference of expression (e.g., is it mostly
minor syntax changes?) and upon whether it was found that the NR people
had invented the mathematical techiques in the first place.

Thus, I would think that the greater the alteration when "translated"
into a different language, the more it would legally become an
IP (Intellectual Property) case (in particular a patent case),
and less a copyright case. For example, would a Funge-98 "translation"
of a NR program really be deemed to be a "derived work"?
http://quadium.net/funge/spec98.html
(Fortunately, I am not a judge nor lawyer, so I don't have decide
such matters.)
--
Programming is what happens while you're busy making other plans.

[Mark McIntyre]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 19:35:16 +0200, in comp.lang.c , Skarmander
<in*****@dontmailme.com> wrote:

Jack Klein wrote:
<snip>

instead are trying to illegally steal copyrighted intellectual
property.

I'm still not comfortable with "stealing"
as a synonym for "disenfranchising someone of their exclusive right to
distribute",

Its worth noting that Websters defines stealing in nonmonetary terms.
to take the property of another wrongfully...
to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep
or make use of wrongfully...
to take surreptitiously or without permission...
etc

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

[Ben Pfaff]

ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) writes:

The NR people appear to rely heavily on copyright in their license
terms, but in their online information do not appear to mention
patents. In most countries, algorithms are not patentable; in
the USA in particular, algorithms -are- patentable (but I'd need to
look further to see whether the publication of the first NR book
was before or after that change to US patent law.)

The earliest publication date I can quickly find for the
Numerical Recipes books on amazon.com is 1986. Because patents
only last 17 to 20 years, it is unlikely that there are any
remaining material in the original Numerical Recipes that could
infringe a patent.
--
int main(void){char p[]="ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuv wxyz.\
\n",*q="kl BIcNBFr.NKEzjwCIxNJC";int i=sizeof p/2;char *strchr();int putchar(\
);while(*q){i+=strchr(p,*q++)-p;if(i>=(int)sizeof p)i-=sizeof p-1;putchar(p[i]\
);}return 0;}

[Chris Smith]

Walter Roberson <ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote:

The NR people appear to rely heavily on copyright in their license
terms, but in their online information do not appear to mention
patents. In most countries, algorithms are not patentable; in
the USA in particular, algorithms -are- patentable (but I'd need to
look further to see whether the publication of the first NR book
was before or after that change to US patent law.)

The NR terms explicitly talk about translation into other computer
languages, and indicate that they would consider such a translation
to be a "derived work" for the purposes of copyright law.

My personal belief is that if such a point were to come to court, that
there would be a diversity of rulings in different jurisdictions; I
suspect that in some courts, whether a "translation" into a different
computer language would be considered a "derived work" or not would
depend upon the degree of difference of expression (e.g., is it mostly
minor syntax changes?) and upon whether it was found that the NR people
had invented the mathematical techiques in the first place.

Patents and copyright are two completely different things. That's one
of the reasons that "intellectual property" is such a misleading term.

As far as copyright is concerned, it makes not one whit of difference
whether any of the authors invented a mathematical technique. Their
copyright still means you can't copy their code. (Incidentally, to
respond to another post, I hope it wouldn't matter whether the country
in question enforces copyright; this is a basic moral question. If they
don't want you to copy their code, then you are morally obligated to
comply.)

It's also pretty clear to me that anything described as translating
their code into another language would form a derivative work. Things
would get fuzzy when you get toward something that might be described as
"using their code to understand an algorithm, which you then use to
independently implement the same algorithm in a different language." I
suppose lawyers could be involved in splitting that particular hair.
There are some definite indications, though. If you've got their book
printed out and sitting right next to you as you work, then it's pretty
clear to me that you're on the wrong side, regardless of the legal
judgement.

If any of the authors filed a patent application, I suppose that might
change things. In that case, I would cease to see any moral grounds for
complying with their ludicrous request that anyone refrain from using a
mathematical fact just because they thought of it once. However, I
don't think I can envision authors who work out posting of their book on
the web also working toward trying to gain a patent on a mathematical
technique; and they didn't "invent" (by which I mean discover) very much
of what's in their book, anyway.

--
Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer / Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation

[Abhi]

Why such a long discussion?

I anyways got the Code Contents from my friend on a cd.
Its got everything I wanted ..the whole package and infact he had taken
it from another friend long back.
You people continue your discussion which I feel is not at all relevant
to any C matters.

Bye guys
Chris Smith wrote:

Walter Roberson <ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote:

The NR people appear to rely heavily on copyright in their license
terms, but in their online information do not appear to mention
patents. In most countries, algorithms are not patentable; in
the USA in particular, algorithms -are- patentable (but I'd need to
look further to see whether the publication of the first NR book
was before or after that change to US patent law.)

The NR terms explicitly talk about translation into other computer
languages, and indicate that they would consider such a translation
to be a "derived work" for the purposes of copyright law.

My personal belief is that if such a point were to come to court, that
there would be a diversity of rulings in different jurisdictions; I
suspect that in some courts, whether a "translation" into a different
computer language would be considered a "derived work" or not would
depend upon the degree of difference of expression (e.g., is it mostly
minor syntax changes?) and upon whether it was found that the NR people
had invented the mathematical techiques in the first place.

Patents and copyright are two completely different things. That's one
of the reasons that "intellectual property" is such a misleading term.

As far as copyright is concerned, it makes not one whit of difference
whether any of the authors invented a mathematical technique. Their
copyright still means you can't copy their code. (Incidentally, to
respond to another post, I hope it wouldn't matter whether the country
in question enforces copyright; this is a basic moral question. If they
don't want you to copy their code, then you are morally obligated to
comply.)

It's also pretty clear to me that anything described as translating
their code into another language would form a derivative work. Things
would get fuzzy when you get toward something that might be described as
"using their code to understand an algorithm, which you then use to
independently implement the same algorithm in a different language." I
suppose lawyers could be involved in splitting that particular hair.
There are some definite indications, though. If you've got their book
printed out and sitting right next to you as you work, then it's pretty
clear to me that you're on the wrong side, regardless of the legal
judgement.

If any of the authors filed a patent application, I suppose that might
change things. In that case, I would cease to see any moral grounds for
complying with their ludicrous request that anyone refrain from using a
mathematical fact just because they thought of it once. However, I
don't think I can envision authors who work out posting of their book on
the web also working toward trying to gain a patent on a mathematical
technique; and they didn't "invent" (by which I mean discover) very much
of what's in their book, anyway.

--
Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer / Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation

[Keith Thompson]

"Abhi" <ab*************@gmail.com> writes:

Why such a long discussion?

I anyways got the Code Contents from my friend on a cd.
Its got everything I wanted ..the whole package and infact he had taken
it from another friend long back.
You people continue your discussion which I feel is not at all relevant
to any C matters.

If you obtained the code in violation of the license to which the
original owner of the CD agreed when he first obtained it, you could
be in some legal trouble. At the very least, I wouldn't advise you to
incorporate the code into anything on which you make a profit.
(That's not to imply that using the code for purposes that don't make
a profit are any less of a copyright violation.)

But yes, this has very little to do with the C programming language.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Skarmander]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 19:35:16 +0200, in comp.lang.c , Skarmander
<in*****@dontmailme.com> wrote:

Jack Klein wrote:
<snip>

instead are trying to illegally steal copyrighted intellectual
property.

I'm still not comfortable with "stealing"
as a synonym for "disenfranchising someone of their exclusive right to
distribute",

Its worth noting that Websters defines stealing in nonmonetary terms.
to take the property of another wrongfully...
to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep
or make use of wrongfully...
to take surreptitiously or without permission...
etc

Yes, but all these things imply *taking* something from someone, in such a
way that that person can no longer make use of the thing themselves, thereby
impoverishing them. Whether money (or in a more general sense economic
value) is involved is immaterial, but it does matter that you are preventing
someone from doing something with the property you stole, whether
potentially or actually.

Violating copyright is infringing on someone's rights of exclusivity. You
are not stealing their actual work, or the money they actually make from
exploiting their right to distribute; you are instead decreasing the value
of their privilege of exclusive distribution.

I've thought about this a bit, and the best explanation I can come up with
is that what's being stolen is a privilege. If I obtain a copy without your
consent I have appropriated your exclusive right of distributing your work
to me. You no longer have it, since I bypassed it. Analogously, if I
distribute the work to others, I have deprived you of your exclusive right
to distribute to them.

Although we can genuinely call this stealing, the problem with this is that
the economic value of the things being stolen (the exclusive right to
distribute to distinct people) is unknown; it may very well have been zero
if the recipients would never have agreed to your terms of distribution. If
such is the case, the value we are talking of is the moral value we attach
to the creator's exclusive right to distribute. This, I wager, is why the
issue is so often contentious: moral values are rather slippery, compared to
cold, hard cash.

For example, equating the value of an illegal copy of a work with the retail
price of a legal copy of that work, as a net loss to the creator, is common.
For this to hold you have to make reasonable that, had making a copy been
impossible to everyone else, you would have sold a legal copy for every
illegal one now being made. This is obviously flawed.

On the other end of the spectrum, arguing that the value of an illegal copy
is zero, as a net loss to the creator, is also common. This assumes that,
even if *everyone* copied, the creator would be none the worse off, and is
equally obviously flawed.

We can all agree that infringing on the creator's moral rights is wrong, but
this leaves open the question of exactly how wrong it is in each case --
notwithstanding the fact that you shouldn't do something wrong just because
you're comfortable with benefitting yourself over it. We are not, after all,
talking about the morality of stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving
children.

Anyone reading this knows it's wildly off-topic by now; I'm sorry... mildly.

S.

[Jack Klein]

On 19 Jun 2006 15:25:28 -0700, "Abhi" <ab*************@gmail.com>
wrote in comp.lang.c:

Why such a long discussion?

I anyways got the Code Contents from my friend on a cd.
Its got everything I wanted ..the whole package and infact he had taken
it from another friend long back.
You people continue your discussion which I feel is not at all relevant
to any C matters.

Bye guys

Now you have confessed to the entire world that you have deliberately
stolen copyrighted material. Do you realize that with Google's
archive, the evidence will probably be around forever? Do you realize
that at least some employers do a Google search on job applicants
before deciding whether to hire them?

You are a dishonest thief, as well as a top poster.

I work for a very large, multinational corporation that employs a lot
of programmers in India, as well as in the USA and Asia. Not
outsourcing, actual employees. I will make sure that you will never
become one of them.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html

[Abhi]

Hi All,
I am a begineer in all these topics and was never aware of so much
danger in copying IP.
Please be assured that I wont use this code for developing any big C
application for any business. Its just that I wanted to run some code
of that book for I was trying to solve matrix equations using Gauss
Jordan method. I have run the code and I have made some modifications
to it to suit my requirements. After reading the above discussion and
after having shown it to my friend who runs a big business of his own,
he explained to me how important are these facts.So, I have completely
disposed off that material except for two functions which I have used
for matrix equations.
Now, can I keep atleast those two functions? My friend says keeping
just the two functions since I have already modified it and since I
wouldn't be indulging in such activities henceforth shouldn't do much
of a problem.
He has agreed to buy the product for me and I have already placed an
order for it. Must be getting it shipped in a day or two.
Thank you and sorry for taking it lightly.Infact, I took it a bit too
lightly itself. :-)

Jack Klein wrote:

On 19 Jun 2006 15:25:28 -0700, "Abhi" <ab*************@gmail.com>
wrote in comp.lang.c:

Why such a long discussion?

I anyways got the Code Contents from my friend on a cd.
Its got everything I wanted ..the whole package and infact he had taken
it from another friend long back.
You people continue your discussion which I feel is not at all relevant
to any C matters.

Bye guys

Now you have confessed to the entire world that you have deliberately
stolen copyrighted material. Do you realize that with Google's
archive, the evidence will probably be around forever? Do you realize
that at least some employers do a Google search on job applicants
before deciding whether to hire them?

You are a dishonest thief, as well as a top poster.

I work for a very large, multinational corporation that employs a lot
of programmers in India, as well as in the USA and Asia. Not
outsourcing, actual employees. I will make sure that you will never
become one of them.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html

[jaysome]

On 19 Jun 2006 23:07:13 -0700, "Abhi" <ab*************@gmail.com>
wrote:

Hi All,
I am a begineer in all these topics and was never aware of so much
danger in copying IP.
Please be assured that I wont use this code for developing any big C
application for any business. Its just that I wanted to run some code
of that book for I was trying to solve matrix equations using Gauss
Jordan method. I have run the code and I have made some modifications
to it to suit my requirements. After reading the above discussion and
after having shown it to my friend who runs a big business of his own,
he explained to me how important are these facts.So, I have completely
disposed off that material except for two functions which I have used
for matrix equations.
Now, can I keep atleast those two functions? My friend says keeping
just the two functions since I have already modified it and since I
wouldn't be indulging in such activities henceforth shouldn't do much
of a problem.
He has agreed to buy the product for me and I have already placed an
order for it. Must be getting it shipped in a day or two.
Thank you and sorry for taking it lightly.Infact, I took it a bit too
lightly itself. :-)

Abhi:

If your case ever goes to trial, then the judge and/or jury should
find in your favor. And you can keep those two functions you modified.
And you can someday possibly work for Jack Klein.

All of this is predicated on, of course, you showing us a receipt for
that supposed purchase of yours :^)

Regards
--
jay

[Keith Thompson]

"Abhi" <ab*************@gmail.com> writes:

I am a begineer in all these topics and was never aware of so much
danger in copying IP.
Please don't top-post. See <http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>.
Please be assured that I wont use this code for developing any big C
application for any business. Its just that I wanted to run some code
of that book for I was trying to solve matrix equations using Gauss
Jordan method. I have run the code and I have made some modifications
to it to suit my requirements. After reading the above discussion and
after having shown it to my friend who runs a big business of his own,
he explained to me how important are these facts.So, I have completely
disposed off that material except for two functions which I have used
for matrix equations.
Now, can I keep atleast those two functions? My friend says keeping
just the two functions since I have already modified it and since I
wouldn't be indulging in such activities henceforth shouldn't do much
of a problem.
He has agreed to buy the product for me and I have already placed an
order for it. Must be getting it shipped in a day or two.
Thank you and sorry for taking it lightly.Infact, I took it a bit too
lightly itself. :-)

This is *not* the place to ask about intellectual property law. I
have no clue whether keeping your two functions would be ok. If
you've licensed the source code in question, read the license. If you
don't understand the license, ask a lawyer.

If somebody here gave you advice, and you followed it, the liability
would be yours.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[micans]

Abhi wrote:

Hi..
I wanted the C source code in machine readable format for the book
"Numerical Recipes in C".
I got hold of the pdf version of the book somehow. Does anyone have the
complete C code of the book?. If yes,..can you please mail me the code
or somehow share it with me?.
With Regards,
Abhishek S

As others have pointed out the code must be licensed, and you have
gracefully acknowledged this issue.

This very issue came to my attention only after having bought the book.
I have to say that I was very disappointed. Rather than having acquired
a book in the long scientific tradition of sharing and furthering
knowledge, I had obtained something that was worse than useless (to
me). [Of course I should have checked before buying]. It is worse than
useless because I (and my employer) typically release code under
GPL-type licenses. This means my best bet is to burn (or sell) the
book and never read its contents, as doing so might taint my code with
something glimpsed from the book.

The book undoubtebly has its audience, but to me it is just a honeypot
for the scientifically-interested that is best avoided.

Anyway, if e.g. the GNU General Public License would be appropriate for
your code (and you might want to consider this for more than just a few
seconds) there are other resources available.
One example is the Gnu Scientific Library.

Stijn

[Dann Corbit]

"Abhi" <ab*************@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11*********************@y41g2000cwy.googlegro ups.com...

Hi All,
I am a begineer in all these topics and was never aware of so much
danger in copying IP.
Please be assured that I wont use this code for developing any big C
application for any business. Its just that I wanted to run some code
of that book for I was trying to solve matrix equations using Gauss
Jordan method. I have run the code and I have made some modifications
to it to suit my requirements. After reading the above discussion and
after having shown it to my friend who runs a big business of his own,
he explained to me how important are these facts.So, I have completely
disposed off that material except for two functions which I have used
for matrix equations.
Now, can I keep atleast those two functions? My friend says keeping
just the two functions since I have already modified it and since I
wouldn't be indulging in such activities henceforth shouldn't do much
of a problem.
He has agreed to buy the product for me and I have already placed an
order for it. Must be getting it shipped in a day or two.
Thank you and sorry for taking it lightly.Infact, I took it a bit too
lightly itself. :-)

If you buy a copy of the book and use the code as described under the
license agreement, then I can't see any problems.

I suggest instead use of some of the excellent codes that are better
constructed and far more lenient in license.

For instance the cephes collection for scientific functions that you lack:
http://www.moshier.net/#Cephes

Atlas for linear algebra:
http://math-atlas.sourceforge.net/

etc. There is no need to violate anyone's intellectual property rights.
Generally speaking, for any sort of application you might like, someone will
have written a package that does the job with very little restrictions on
use. When an author creates a tool set, it is only right that you follow
the author's explicit instructions (and any implicit instructions implied by
law). Imagine if you wrote a package. You might want to get paid for its
use. You might want to get credit, but let it be used freely. If someone
has spent a few hundred or a few thousand hours working on something, it is
only just and right that we abide by their wishes in exactly the same manner
that we would like to be treated ourselves.

Further, if you have specific questions about numerical software, probably
news:sci.math.num-analysis is a better location to ask because it is focused
on doing mathematics with computers.

I own a copy of all of the Numerical Recipies books for C and C++ and I
think that the text is above average but the code is below average. The C++
code is much better than the C code, which is sub-par.

I think that you should familiarize yourself with the meaning of software
licenses. You should know what GPL, LGPL, Berkeley, Apache, etc. sort of
licenses mean. If someday you will work for a sofware company it is crucial
that you understand this. You could expose your company to a billion dollar
lawsuit trying to save $50 if you act incompetently.

Sourceforge:
http://sourceforge.net/

is my home away from home. Learn to use the resources that are at your
fingertips.

And if you have questions about the C programming language come here.

[Walter Roberson]

In article <87************@benpfaff.org>,
Ben Pfaff <bl*@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:

ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) writes:

The NR people appear to rely heavily on copyright in their license
terms, but in their online information do not appear to mention
patents.

The earliest publication date I can quickly find for the
Numerical Recipes books on amazon.com is 1986. Because patents
only last 17 to 20 years, it is unlikely that there are any
remaining material in the original Numerical Recipes that could
infringe a patent.

I'm a bit fuzzy on patent renewals. I did find a clear statement
that in the USA patents can only be renewed up to the original term,
but in my chasing I wasn't able to figure out what the whole
"patent maintenance fee" was all about, and found one uspto reference
that I interpreted as hinting that patent maintenance fees are no longer
in use in the USA.

The copyright holders appear to be Cambridge University Press, in the UK;
I didn't try to follow up to examine UK patent law.

The OP was asking specifically about Numerical Recipies in C, which was
published in 1988, 18 years ago, which was before the USA changed the
way it determined patent longevity. If I found the correct summary
sections, in that case any applicable patent would last either
17 years after patent approval or 20 years after patent application,
but I misremember now whether that was "the earlier" or "the later"
of the two dates. As the C programs might in theory use different
patents than the programs in the original book, there is a legal possibility
that there is a remaining patent or three involved in the NR in C book.
I don't really think there is [especially as I see no patent numbers
listed in the preface], but I cannot currently rule the possibility out.
The 2nd Edition (more likely to be what the OP was looking at) was 1992
so changed programs could plausibly have a few years of patents yet.
Of course, this whole patent discussion is predicated upon the
unproven premise that some court somewhere might rule that a
translatation or rewrite of the programs was sufficiently distinct
from the original to no longer be a "derived work" (since, after all,
copyright is explicitly not able to protect -ideas-, only expression of
them, so there must be -some- boundaries as to what might be
deemed "derived".) One of the other posters named what is probably
the easiest solution: use one of the other already existing GPL or
license-free numerical libraries.
--
Okay, buzzwords only. Two syllables, tops. -- Laurie Anderson

[Richard Bos]

jaysome <ja*****@spamcop.net> wrote:

On 19 Jun 2006 23:07:13 -0700, "Abhi" <ab*************@gmail.com>
wrote:

Please be assured that I wont use this code for developing any big C
application for any business. Its just that I wanted to run some code
of that book for I was trying to solve matrix equations using Gauss
Jordan method. I have run the code and I have made some modifications
to it to suit my requirements. After reading the above discussion and
after having shown it to my friend who runs a big business of his own,
he explained to me how important are these facts.So, I have completely
disposed off that material except for two functions which I have used
for matrix equations.

If your case ever goes to trial, then the judge and/or jury should
find in your favor.
I would not put money on this. I would not put money on the opposite,
either, but I see no reason to be sure of this.
And you can keep those two functions you modified.
And you can someday possibly work for Jack Klein.

I would not put money on this, either. I, for one, would not employ him.
Regardless of whether he is or is not in the right, a predictable and
very expensive lawsuit is not something you want as an employer.

Richard

[Your Uncle]

"jaysome" <ja*****@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:db********************************@4ax.com...

On 19 Jun 2006 23:07:13 -0700, "Abhi" <ab*************@gmail.com>
wrote:

Hi All,
I am a begineer in all these topics and was never aware of so much
danger in copying IP.
Please be assured that I wont use this code for developing any big C
application for any business. Its just that I wanted to run some code
of that book for I was trying to solve matrix equations using Gauss
Jordan method. I have run the code and I have made some modifications
to it to suit my requirements. After reading the above discussion and
after having shown it to my friend who runs a big business of his own,
he explained to me how important are these facts.So, I have completely
disposed off that material except for two functions which I have used
for matrix equations.
Now, can I keep atleast those two functions? My friend says keeping
just the two functions since I have already modified it and since I
wouldn't be indulging in such activities henceforth shouldn't do much
of a problem.
He has agreed to buy the product for me and I have already placed an
order for it. Must be getting it shipped in a day or two.
Thank you and sorry for taking it lightly.Infact, I took it a bit too
lightly itself. :-)

Abhi:

If your case ever goes to trial, then the judge and/or jury should
find in your favor. And you can keep those two functions you modified.
And you can someday possibly work for Jack Klein.

All of this is predicated on, of course, you showing us a receipt for
that supposed purchase of yours :^)

I'm having deja vu all over again. I think one is well-advised to have a
conjectural judge judy on his shoulder to consult when one conducts himself.
Period. Do you know what Judge Judy would think of ':^)' as lying
elaboration fills her courtroom? cheers, furunculus