17 April 2017, 04:23 | #21 |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 2,960
|
PeterK's icon.library, we can't have one person (however benevolent) distributing his critical piece of software as a "freeware". It MUST be purchased and GPL'ed and handed to an undying consortium in a perpetual safe trust for all of eternity.
|
17 April 2017, 04:34 | #22 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 552
|
I sense sarcasm in your tone there grelbfarlk, but to confirm: for sure I am not interested in anything but a GPL license for any of this stuff. As far as relicensing rights, etc, I really don't care about it or want to support that. I want a GPL fork of AmigaOS and all components, period.
|
17 April 2017, 05:19 | #23 |
BoingBagged
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The South of nowhere
Age: 46
Posts: 2,358
|
@wXR
I really understand and support your desition. Hopefully you end up achieving it. As has been mentioned, there are some AmigaOS components that have not been homebred by Commodore. Many of them were licensed, and this may proove to be a showstopper in many cases. I dont know its current situation but as far as I know these components were built by third parties and licensed, the extent of that license needs to be verified: -Amigaguide document format -Arexx was made by William S. Hawes -CrossDOS was made by Consultron (which closed doors) -Say was made by Simile Research -CDTV specific components were made by Pantharay -The Commodities concept and its library was originally made by Jim Mackraz -There is still some MetaComCo code lingering here and there (Peter Mackeonis) And the list probably goes on. On the legal aspects, why dont you ask the Free Software Foundation or any other NGO that pursues open source for advice? |
17 April 2017, 07:43 | #24 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 552
|
Gulliver,
Thank you friend, this is exactly what I was looking to uncover in this thread. Your small, incomplete list makes it easier to understand why this is so complex, and to what extent we will have to reach a bit for the stars if this is to be completed *in total*. You also have a very fine idea there about asking the FSF for legal support. I will absolutely do that. I am still keen on finding an "Amiga supporter" to help us on the legal side (both for passion and possible cost-savings), but approaching the FSF for a recommendation may in fact be a better route in the first place. Can you tell me, (unofficially of course, because you've never looked at it ), if source for all of those components is in fact in the leaked AmigaOS 3.1 source package that is floating around? |
17 April 2017, 08:41 | #25 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Den Haag / Netherlands
Posts: 193
|
Quote:
I tend to disagree. There are tons of open source licenses to choose from. BSD, LGPL, MIT, Apache and lots more. GPLv3 might hurt the community, GPLv2 is quite okay. Every license has is pro's and con's. |
|
17 April 2017, 08:54 | #26 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Den Haag / Netherlands
Posts: 193
|
Quote:
I think this is somewhat troublesome, but on the other hand; the core (kickstart and workbench) first and then the third party components can follow. I think kickstart and workbench itself isn't that hard to pursue, the parties that could claim any right are relative easy to find. Third party components might be quite more troublesome and could quite possibly be replaced with open source variants or might even be used so little that there is no real use for them anymore. Tackling something like that in one go would probably hurt this project. As this might kill interest. |
|
17 April 2017, 08:55 | #27 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 881
|
Quote:
GPL2 has a proven track record with Linux. All the other licenses would be better than where we are now, however with some of them we could end up with closed source forks, still better than where we are now. |
|
17 April 2017, 09:12 | #28 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 552
|
@alpine9000
I would prefer to pursue GPLv2. @michaelz I agree with your assessment there. |
17 April 2017, 09:34 | #29 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Den Haag / Netherlands
Posts: 193
|
Maybe this is interesting for this discussion as well. Hyperion appears to be busy with some trademarks (my German is a bit too rusty) http://www.amiga-news.de/de/news/AN-...-00033-DE.html
|
17 April 2017, 09:39 | #30 | |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 2,917
|
Quote:
|
|
17 April 2017, 09:41 | #31 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Den Haag / Netherlands
Posts: 193
|
Quote:
Probably the name Commodore is everywhere as well and that is in a lot of other parties hands. |
|
17 April 2017, 09:44 | #32 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 552
|
Yes, it should be no problem to sell derivative works, as long as the terms of the GPL are adhered to.
|
17 April 2017, 09:46 | #33 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 881
|
Of course, even if we are successful at getting all the sources, being able to build them is another story.
From what I can tell it was a massive effort to build them in a way that (a) worked, and (b) fit into a rom. Not saying this to be negative, more just for people to be prepared for a big technical challenge in the event that the legal obstacles are overcome. |
17 April 2017, 10:14 | #34 | |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 2,917
|
Quote:
i.e. start by building exec then use that new exec with what you get when you romsplit a KS3.1. Rinse and repeat for all components. |
|
17 April 2017, 10:34 | #35 | |
Pastafarian
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Uppsala/Sweden
Posts: 290
|
Quote:
|
|
17 April 2017, 10:36 | #36 | |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 2,917
|
Quote:
|
|
17 April 2017, 10:50 | #37 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 881
|
Quote:
The most concerning thing was the need to use a specific version of the Greenhills C compiler. That would be an absolute showstopper for an open source project. So the alternatives would be modifying the source to use a more accessible compiler, or modifying a compiler. |
|
17 April 2017, 13:39 | #38 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Den Haag / Netherlands
Posts: 193
|
Quote:
Both cloanto and Hyperion have pushed updates to the original 3.1. So both should be able to provide information on building the code and that should also be part of negotiations with these parties. |
|
17 April 2017, 14:07 | #39 | |
BoingBagged
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The South of nowhere
Age: 46
Posts: 2,358
|
Quote:
Be warned, that the leak is a disorganized mess. And recompilation requires lots of expertisse. |
|
17 April 2017, 14:43 | #40 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dublin, then Glasgow
Posts: 6,379
|
Cloanto didn't recompile any of the original code. They just replaced some of the modules with already existing updates and created a new ROM based on those, removing workbench.library in order to make space for the replacement components. Whether that's because they don't have the expertise, don't have the source licence or don't have the will I don't know.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FBlit source now open. | Samurai_Crow | Coders. Asm / Hardware | 58 | 16 June 2020 18:08 |
Please open source all the things | wXR | Amiga scene | 382 | 21 April 2020 17:21 |
Help to open-source SAS/C | Hauke | Coders. General | 35 | 26 September 2017 22:39 |
Postal gone Open Source | Shoonay | Retrogaming General Discussion | 1 | 29 December 2016 15:35 |
NewsRog goes Open Source | Paul | News | 0 | 04 December 2004 16:37 |
|
|