[david-given]

Well, I wrote one in Haskell, so there!

(Currently trapped in legal hell. I work for one of those annoying companies that claims ownership of everything I do, even in my personal time, so I have to get it cleared before I can push it to github...)

I added some extensions to allow one node to program another; the PROGRAM <dir> opcode resets the node in that direction, and it can then be fed a series of numbers which form the program. Once complete it starts executing.

With this, it ought to be possible to program an arbitrary network with programs from a boot ROM attached to a single node at the corner. It would have to propagate the distribution program through the network, which would then in turn propagate the program to the right place and reprogram each node in turn. Because a programmed node wouldn't contain the distribution program any more we'd have to start at the outer edge and work inwards.

I do wonder whether it would be possible to get real work done with this. I bet a node could be implemented in a tiny handful of FPGA gates.

[JoeAltmaier]

There's a reason to move to Silicon Valley - its illegal in CA for a company to claim work you do on your own time.

[mondoshawan]

This is not quite correct. Even out here in CA you still need permission if your employer has an invention assignment agreement.

[JoeAltmaier]

They ask you to sign those, but the state doesn't permit them to claim inventions done on your time on your equipment. Don't be fooled.

[mondoshawan]

What exactly constitutes "your time"? Is there a legal definition for this that appeared recently?

I had a long-drawn out conversation with Chris DiBona about this very question, and the answer is that it's very very murky, and most of the time -- even in California -- the corps can win.

[lfowles]

You will still want to work with the company so there is proof that you both agree you are exempt.

[JoeAltmaier]

You can't sign your rights away. The company document is void.

[lfowles]

I'm not arguing that. Completely disregarding the void document, you will still want to document _and notify_ the company that your IP is in the exempt category.

I'm assuming the law is similar to Kansas Statute 44-130[0]

(d) Even though the employee meets the burden of proving the conditions specified in this section, the employee shall disclose, at the time of employment or thereafter, all inventions being developed by the employee, for the purpose of determining employer and employee rights in an invention.

[0]: http://www.kslegislature.org/li_2014/b2013_14/statute/044_00...