From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <49DA4321.9060608@proweb.co.uk> References: <775b8d190903182037o281f2a43n5f20cf135ed4a4c3@mail.gmail.com> <38c8d7d7-71b1-4946-b561-4557767ad622@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> <775b8d190903191950oe9a7b96g2371b09e948a5b87@mail.gmail.com> <49DA4321.9060608@proweb.co.uk> Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:07:40 +0100 Message-ID: <6a3ae47e0904070207t5318879en147757ef142e411a@mail.gmail.com> From: Robert Raschke To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] Fwd: New Chip (SEAforth 40C18) - New Challenge Topicbox-Message-UUID: d3f27e7e-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:00 PM, maht wrote: > > SeaForth is dead already > > http://colorforth.com/vTPL.htm > > http://colorforth.com/S40.htm > These docs aren't dated. And I remember a lot of discussion about 1 - 2 years ago about the patent issues surrounding Chuck Moore's work. So I'm wondering if this info is outdated. The Forth Usernet group seems to indicate that these chips are fine and dandy. Robby