17 April 2017, 17:56 | #221 | |
Pastafarian
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
Posts: 290
|
Quote:
Last edited by ascp; 17 April 2017 at 18:03. |
|
17 April 2017, 18:20 | #222 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: milan / italy
Posts: 174
|
Hello, I would go for a super liberal license like MIT or BSD.
GPL will make impossible to statically link code which is not GPL compatible (see Linux and ZFS as an example). Static linking is even more important than in Linux in a limited platform like 68k Amiga. A license like MIT is a no brainier. GPL always requires considerations. For example AROS license is described as not GPL compatible. This will make hard to mix code between projects. |
17 April 2017, 18:44 | #223 | ||||
Zone Friend
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 812
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The Mozilla Public License has a clause always allowing Code to be relicensed under later versions of the same license, and MPL 2.0 finally introduced GPL compatibility. Something similar should be possible with the AROS license, along with finally fixing the license's name for good. |
||||
17 April 2017, 19:45 | #224 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: berlin/germany
Posts: 1,054
|
Quote:
actually my understanding is, it allows people to fork that open source and keep this fork closed, the opened source would remain open, and the changes done to forked source files might be required to be kept open, as it is in case of aros license. however stupid modzilla or aros license might be, it has not led to close any of their sources by now. instead, it allowed closed source spinoff attempts alike arix, which even if effectively led to nothing themselves, have not had any negative impact of aros itself. rather to the contrary, they were first to have proven that multiprocessing is possible with amigalike os, had some code ported back and today aros itself can follow in their footsteps, even if the implementation is different. |
|
17 April 2017, 22:21 | #225 | ||
Zone Friend
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 812
|
Yes?
Quote:
Not saying this is likely, but if you've suffered from the negative effects of proprietary software was much as we did, using the GPL (or, more appropriately, the LGPL) makes a lot of sense, IMHO. Quote:
|
||
18 April 2017, 01:26 | #226 | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: berlin/germany
Posts: 1,054
|
Quote:
therefore i think most welcome license by majority of the parties would be lgpl. but it is moot point, since nothing will happen. Quote:
|
||
18 April 2017, 04:20 | #227 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 552
|
For what it's worth, I am not okay with proprietary software. Where my efforts are concerned, I will push for a GPLv2 relicensing. As Korodny himself begins to suggest, I also don't ever want to see any future form of it closed or exploited by anyone again. GPL may seem brutal in some respects, but I don't think it is without justification.
@jonathan I had proposed your "declare it public domain" idea elsewhere, strongly suggesting to everyone that none of the companies involved in this had enough legal resources -- and possibly none of the rights -- to pursue anything other than cease-and-desist letters. I wanted everyone to channel their inner pirate, or at least their inner courage, and work on the 3.1 sources in public. However, it seems that very few folks who are still left around here are willing to do that. So going down this horrible road is pretty much the only option left, in order to be inclusive. @Korodny I'm appreciating now some of the nuance in the point you were making about not looking too hard. And perhaps this is sufficient. |
19 April 2017, 02:55 | #228 |
Tech Guru
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Oxnard, CA
Posts: 189
|
Okay so I just used the byteswap option on my burner software on the A500 version and its fine, but not sure about how to burn the double ROMS for my A1200 as an example. ROMsplit doesnt work on them.
|
19 April 2017, 09:55 | #229 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 536
|
Quote:
I've been around for a while, and every time community efforts materialized to forge a path for the Amiga operating system to be liberated, things stalled at the first step (I still have the big "Team Amiga" and "Phoenix" mailing list contents in storage, from almost 20 years ago). As much energy as you can expend on breaking the chains which hold the operating system, the next difficult part is in figuring out what to do about it once it's been liberated. This is still a fairly large lump of code, not in the kind of shape which allows you to build and maintain it quickly. The tools which the operating system were created with are still as old as the last AmigaOS release version. Worse still, these old tools are still better adapted to the task than the ones you could apply today (e.g. GCC for 68k). My point is that the first step, acquiring and licensing the code, will fall flat unless you also spend effort on figuring out how to make use of the operating system code. For that you both need an organization to tend to it, and the people with the knowledge to make that happen. Neither of this is going to come together on its own accord. Making software for the Amiga, maintaining it, is not a growing field. While you can conveniently find copies of the development material and documentation, the breadth and depth required to become familiar and proficient with it is not easily attainable. Access to the operating system code is important, but so is the other half of the equation, i.e. what to do with the code, and how to enable that. I believe that without covering both ends, the results will be more than just disappointing. |
|
19 April 2017, 10:32 | #230 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Den Haag / Netherlands
Posts: 193
|
Quote:
The discussion is going all over the place, I think the right place right now is the thread "Critical components to open source". |
|
19 April 2017, 11:53 | #231 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 552
|
@Olaf
Thank you for your thoughts. I'm offering money and some leg-work to get the process started, I really don't have the knowledge, skills, or frankly the time, to take it any further than that. However, it is in fact a step in a sequence, is it not? The GPL relicensing can hardly "fail" if the GPL relicensing is the goal itself. As you point out, it is just one step of many (perhaps) required to manifest some idea of progress around what is currently known as AmigaOS, but it is at least a concrete goal in that one respect. I am only offering to help with this first step. My belief is that this puts the entire community in a stronger position, because suddenly the freedom to do something will at least be there. How could that be any worse than the current situation? I can't really understand any arguments to that effect. If an "organization" is required to go further, someone can create one. Personally I am not going to do that, as I am not the all-around Amiga messiah -- and thank god! To be clear, I'm just a guy, and I don't have any such plan. On the other hand I would argue that the supposed rightsholders don't either... |
19 April 2017, 13:34 | #232 |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,348
|
Getting the entirety of AmigaOS 3.1 to build from source is far from easy going by Olsen's accounts, especially if you intend to make a 512 kB Kickstart out of it.
However, an opened source means that 1) bugs and missing features in separate components, such as a single library or C: command, can be fixed 2) said functionality can be reproduced in a new implementation with less risk of failing on edge cases or wasting time trying to reverse-engineer intended behaviour 3) sooner or later, someone with too much time may be able to make it build when said person has too much time and not when all rights have been cleared and said person no longer has the time. |
19 April 2017, 14:00 | #233 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 472
|
Yup, at least if it is open, someone or some group *can* do something with it given time & effort, if it remains closed, it's dead.
|
19 April 2017, 14:09 | #234 |
AmigaDev.com
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Age: 35
Posts: 625
|
Having the source open would also be beneficial for the likes of AROS or MorphOS as well for research and reimplementation purposes.
|
19 April 2017, 14:22 | #235 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 472
|
|
19 April 2017, 15:22 | #236 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 552
|
I would definitely like to see the AROS guys fully able to work with/learn from the AmigaOS sources. One of my big motivations in wanting to push for the relicensing.
|
21 April 2017, 15:20 | #237 |
PSPUAE DEV
|
|
21 April 2017, 18:27 | #238 |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,348
|
Really? According to what I've read, graphics.library depends on the old Greenhill compiler not only because of compiler intricacies, but because other compilers can't generate as compact code.
|
21 April 2017, 19:32 | #239 | |
BoingBagged
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The South of nowhere
Age: 46
Posts: 2,358
|
Quote:
So someone with a lot of spare time can adapt/rebuild that code for other more available compiler. It is not impossible by any means, but it will certainly take a lot of man hours. |
|
21 April 2017, 19:41 | #240 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,284
|
Quote:
It shouldn't be too difficult but it is likely a monotonous and error prone job so it would require some testing afterward. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SWOS 16/17 - The official unofficial update! EDITORS WANTED! | Playaveli | Retrogaming General Discussion | 99 | 28 October 2017 19:58 |
Hyperion page does not start, is broken | vitux | Amiga websites reviews | 2 | 20 April 2013 19:59 |
Hyperion Announce AmigaOS4.1 Update 1 Now available for download | Mikey_C | News | 6 | 24 January 2010 15:04 |
Amiga Inc. Sues Hyperion VOF. | Ultron | News | 55 | 25 December 2007 23:08 |
|
|