Please open source all the things

[commodorejohn]

Originally Posted by wXR

Same for you commodorejohn, you've already made your point. Rather than enter the domain of trolling, how about adding some substance to your argument? A few people have already made legitimate points, such as the fact that "managing" a community of developers can theoretically be distracting, that someone may wish to have eternal full control over a given product, and that the quality of their code may simply make one look bad. Do you have any further thoughts about it? "Someone might not want to" is really not worth writing down, because, well, obviously...

Except for the part where you keep insisting that if we could just present the facts then it would disprove "closed source thinking," as if the only reason anybody could want to keep their source to themselves is because they have directly counter-factual misconceptions. It's typical Internet-zealot rhetoric - "your opinion isn't valid (because of reasons I could totally give but won't, but totally could, believe me,) therefore you can't legitimately believe what you believe, therefore you can't disagree with me."

[BuZz]

Originally Posted by Dunny

I have had some people commit changes to my SVN, but I revert them when it happens.

D.

Lots of odd comments in this thread. From destroying source code rather than releasing it, to the above. Sounds like you have public commit access - not sure that is a good idea - perhaps use a bugtracker so people can submit patchsets for review.

People can licence their code as they like, but IMHO it is beneficial in many cases to have the code open - especially if the software is unlikely to be developed further by the original devs.

I benefit commercially from open source, and work on a number of open projects in my spare time. Certainly without the code being open, some of the projects I have contributed to would be dead now. If the Amiga community had embraced this years ago, I think we would be in a far better situation with software - as already mentioned, in some cases there were developers who intentionally tried to stop their software being run on another Amiga-like platform as they didn't "like it", which affected the OS3 version too. Never made any sense to me.

[Dunny]

Originally Posted by BuZz

Lots of odd comments in this thread. From destroying source code rather than releasing it, to the above. Sounds like you have public commit access - not sure that is a good idea - perhaps use a bugtracker so people can submit patchsets for review.

People can licence their code as they like, but IMHO it is beneficial in many cases to have the code open - especially if the software is unlikely to be developed further by the original devs.

I leave it that way so that when I do abandon it others can then take over - I don't have to flick a switch and make it open (and let's face it, if I'm not around any longer then that's not going to happen).

Until that time I won't accept any changes to my code. They can look at it, fork it, whatever they want... but they cannot contribute in any way whatsoever to the core project.

It's my project, and that's that.

As for the projects that I decided not to open source, the source will be lost when I stop coding/die/move on. That's just the luck of the draw.

D.

[BuZz]

Well, if you are not around, it can be forked anyway, and development continued on the fork. leaving a repository so it can be committed to by anyone is a really bad idea (such as having to revert bad commits as you said - and the risk of spam / malicious code) - and it would have to be forked as no-one would have control of the original repository if you were not around. So no reason to allow public commits, unless you want to run it like a wiki.

out of interest where is this code that anyone can contribute to (before you revert their changes)

[Amiga1992]

Originally Posted by Korodny

Yet people keep telling him to shut up, they imply he's feeling an "incredible sense of entitlement" or that the mere thought of asking would be an insult...

Nobody is telling him to shut up. But those who develop are trying to say what they think and they are being ignored.

Nobody has to be "convinced of anything", if the thread was more like "I leave this out here, think about it", perhaps there'd be less "problems".
When I voiced my opinion my main argument was never acknowledged and instead I was told the same thing over and over, showing there was really no interest in what I had to say, rather in just push ahead the idea of open sourcing everything no matter what developers have to say about it.

[saimon69]

Ok, am following the thread and am a bit disappointed from the fold is taking; however, while i know i cannot expect anyone to release their app sources at first request, fully in the rights, am however more concerned about those technologies that could guarantee and foster the preservation (forget about growth) of the Amiga platform, like frameworks and libraries to interface with devices or create applications: right now with the exceptions of those used by AROS most of it are still proprietary and the documentation is not accessible without NDAs - think at p96 and reaction - or released open but with licenses not exactly interoperability-friendly like Warp OS that explicitly forbid the use in non-commodore-or-hyperion Amiga OS systems;

[Korodny]

Originally Posted by Akira

Nobody is telling him to shut up.

"you keep going on and on and on and on like a spoiled child. Give it a rest."
"you are trying to force feed the mantra of 'all software should be open source'"

But those who develop are trying to say what they think and they are being ignored.

When I voiced my opinion my main argument was never acknowledged

He replied to you twice, you made it very clear that open source is not for you. What's left to discuss? This is not an argument that needs to have a winner. Your sources won't be released, everybody gets that.

rather in just push ahead the idea of open sourcing everything no matter what developers have to say about it.

I don't get that - do you want to have a say in what wXR is discussing with other developers? I don't get why that would bother you?

[Minuous]

>most of your games are unlicensed conversions of copyrighted board games. Not that I have a problem with that (like I said, I enjoyed playing "Africa" for a bit), but that fact alone would hinder more widespread distribution anyway.

There are/were commercial games such as Yahtzee, Monopoly (if memory serves) and suchlike distributed alongside Red Hat Linux...I still have the relevant CDs lying around somewhere...

>and in a single 15 second brainstorming session could come up with a hole in your concept (banner ads) - that's not exactly a seal of quality.

As I already pointed out, the next revision of the licence will make it clearer that that isn't permitted. GPL and suchlike don't seem to have any restrictions at all about adding such things. So I don't see how that is a hole in my licence but not likewise a hole in the GPL. Obviously my licence isn't perfect but the obvious solution is to improve it, not just abandon it because it's not yet perfect.

>plus the new clause that people named 'James' are not allowed to do anything with the code.

Actually, that case is explicitly handled by the licence, in the "must allow us the right to backport improvements" part. Perhaps it should be a bit clearer and/or more restrictive about what kind of licences for derivative works are acceptable though.

>You might want to look at CC-BY-SA (a free license) or CC-BY-SA-NC.

Well, I'll have a look at them, and also at the AWeb Public Licence and some others, and see if any of them fit the bill. I'd be surprised if that was the case though.

Originally Posted by saimon69

most of it are still proprietary and the documentation is not accessible without NDAs - think at p96 and reaction

ReAction documentation is part of the freely available OS3.9 NDK (and the various OS4 SDKs too). I'm fairly sure the P96 autodocs are also publicly available. And I certainly never signed any NDA.

[Megol]

Semi off topic but still: I absolutely hate people that uses the GPL and then "requires" one to accept the licence when installing a binary file. It is allowed by the GPL for some reason _but_ one doesn't have to accept the licence to use the software! As a user one doesn't need to accept the terms as those are only relevant to _public_distribution_.
There are a lot of other problems with the GPL but most comes back to one single thing: it is intended to empower programmers, not users.

[wXR]

Originally Posted by Megol

Semi off topic but still: I absolutely hate people that uses the GPL and then "requires" one to accept the licence when installing a binary file. It is allowed by the GPL for some reason _but_ one doesn't have to accept the licence to use the software! As a user one doesn't need to accept the terms as those are only relevant to _public_distribution_.
There are a lot of other problems with the GPL but most comes back to one single thing: it is intended to empower programmers, not users.

I haven't really run into that much software that does that, it's probably not even a license-required practice (though I could be wrong).

[Megol]

Try installing some pre-compiled GPL software on Windows.

[wXR]

Originally Posted by Megol

Try installing some pre-compiled GPL software on Windows.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm just saying that I have some doubts that this is required on part of the developer (usually he can just include some files in the distribution directory).

[Korodny]

Originally Posted by Megol

I absolutely hate people that uses the GPL and then "requires" one to accept the licence when installing a binary file. It is allowed by the GPL for some reason _but_ one doesn't have to accept the licence to use the software!

Of course you do. The GPL contains very specific information as to what you can do with the object code - i.e. only distribute it with a clear statement it's GPL software, include either the sourcecode or an offer to send out the sources to anyone who asks for them etc. - so just like with any other product license, you need to agree to it before using the software.

The GPL doesn't require that the user explicitly confirms its consent, of course. And afaict it only happens on Windows - probably based on the assumption that Windows users have no clue what free software is. I can't remember ever seeing a GPL notice pop up on Linux.

Originally Posted by Minuous

There are/were commercial games such as Yahtzee, Monopoly (if memory serves) and suchlike distributed alongside Red Hat Linux...

"were", not are. Even the free software crowd needed some time to understand all copyright and trademark issues.

GPL and suchlike don't seem to have any restrictions at all about adding such things.

It does, see section 5(c) of GPL v3 or section 2(b) of GPL v2.

[robinsonb5]

Originally Posted by Korodny

The GPL contains very specific information as to what you can do with the object code - i.e. only distribute it with a clear statement it's GPL software, include either the sourcecode or an offer to send out the sources to anyone who asks for them etc. - so just like with any other product license, you need to agree to it before using the software.

Actually, no - that's one of the GPL's greatest strengths: that it doesn't remove rights you would have by default, it only applies to acts that would otherwise be forbidden under copyright law, such as redistributing or creating derivative works. Section 9 of the GPL version 3:

9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.

You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.

[Megol]

Originally Posted by Korodny

Of course you do. The GPL contains very specific information as to what you can do with the object code - i.e. only distribute it with a clear statement it's GPL software, include either the sourcecode or an offer to send out the sources to anyone who asks for them etc. - so just like with any other product license, you need to agree to it before using the software.

I think all GPL users should hate it too. But the fact is that a lot of them are essentially assholes that think users aren't worth shit (and I do have experience with "a few" such people).
The GPL _doesn't_ require accepting the licence for using it, it only regulates modification and distribution of software. Requiring accepting the licence before installing it is an additional requirement that logically should go against the GPL itself. But the FSF doesn't think so.

The GPL doesn't require that the user explicitly confirms its consent, of course. And afaict it only happens on Windows - probably based on the assumption that Windows users have no clue what free software is. I can't remember ever seeing a GPL notice pop up on Linux.

Some software shows the GPL licence informing the users of their rights under it _but_ doesn't require the user to accept it for installing. That's the right way to do it. Some only mentions the licence in documentation and that's acceptable.

Under Linux one commonly install using some type of packet manager which will list the licence of the software. Or one will compile it oneself.

[Photon]

Originally Posted by wXR

Hi guys,

It's amazing to see that even in 2015, our hobbyist computer still receives so many new developments. These efforts are no doubt highly appreciated by everyone, but I think we can do even better. This post is being made to encourage everyone to start thinking, ironically, about future users, and future developers.

Sakura here, is leading the way:
https://github.com/Sakura-IT/

Transparency. The benefits are clear: If you open your code (and designs, in Sakura's case) up, you allow more people to participate in it. You may grow tired of your project, but others may continue deriving benefit from it. Is what you really want for everyone to start again from scratch, to painstakingly reverse engineer what you've already achieved? Attribution doesn't go away with Git repositories, you know. :-)

I cannot imagine any reason in 2015, why most new Amiga (or retrocomputer generally) apps should not include source. Most likely you aren't making any money from this stuff. Why not allow newcomers and existing enthusiasts alike to learn from your work, and for existing users to continue improving it? As much as I'm speaking to individual app developers, I'm also looking at you Hyperion, A-EON, AmigaKit, Elbox, MorphOS team, etc. It isn't the 1990s anymore.

Again, much love and respect for your work. But let's make what's left of Amiga land all about educating and sharing, as much as it continues to be about impressing the living hell out of one another. :-)

Most have pet projects and do it precisely to be regarded as helping the community with quality products that they make in their spare time. That's why any prices are relatively low, they already have a job.

Originally Posted by Hewitson

A great idea but most Amiga software developers are too selfish to do it. Not only are their projects closed-source but they ask for money for them as well. Some things never change.

Yes, imagine being so selfish as to want a little money for spending your spare time working!

You could justify your "we want everything you've done for free!" with "it's for the good of the community!", but the dev's choice and reasons can't be questioned. Because he did the work to solve a need.

Needing X and refusing to pay for X with the motivation that you lack the time or competence to make X doesn't give you the right to put some sort of blame on the one who did.

~

I think we're doing all right. In the case of abandonware the design/sources end up in the usual places, and if the developer is still active you can contact him and ask for the source.

~

If you want some things off the top of my head that could improve things, we could:

1) Develop versions of the things you feel the community needs that cost money, and release them as open source ourselves. For some of them, it might entail legal issues.

2) Make a portal site where devs upload sources and a team goes through them, prep and document them, and put them up on an open-source site, similar to what is already done for f.ex. demos and utilities on Janeway and Aminet.

3) Do Kickstarters or make microdonations sites for active developers to use. This would mean that things are worth something to everyone involved, i.e. cost a little money. But I think it would lead to new developments that accurately represent what users need. I think this is the progressive solution.

These are very abstract and generic suggestions, like the question. I think it would be more constructive and lead to results if we got down to cases. That's what happens automatically with 3) above.

[Minuous]

Originally Posted by Korodny

It does, see section 5(c) of GPL v3 or section 2(b) of GPL v2.

Those clauses don't say anything about adding malware.

[wXR]

Photon, a portal site as you describe is what I am considering putting together. I think your idea about Kickstarters/microdonations is a pretty good notion too, with the weight of my personal preference on small-scale Kickstarters... I believe the community is too small to make microdonations feel terribly meaningful, but we could always try it.

Regarding my earlier question of how much it would cost to "free" AmigaOS 1.0-3.9, it might be a good time to start figuring with crystal clarity out who actually owns that, and what it would take to pry it from their hands. I don't want to simply say "that's impossible", because it surely isn't.

For now I think some useful work would be continuing to round up lists of existing open source stuff as has been done here by Korodny, so we have some lay of the land.

[strim]

Originally Posted by wXR

Photon, a portal site as you describe is what I am considering putting together.

If you're going to make any site, it's a good idea to first think of existing attempts and then think of how they failed at their premise. Look at OpenAmiga - a complete failure in my opinion.

Personally, I think it needs to integrate well with the existing solutions, while having... any advantage for the developer.

Some ideas:
- No point in reimplementing GitHub that is already doing a fine job at repository management and bug tracking. But maybe there is a point in building something Amiga-specific around it, like for example automated CVS->git gateway for all projects, to help people working on classic Amiga projects. GitHub has an extensive API. Another advantage would be external authentication (last thing I need is another amiga-related login/pass to remember).
- Don't reimplement the forums system, it's better to just ask admins to create another project here on EAB.

[Photon]

I don't mean another Github (just as the sentence says). Upload .zip, team creates a repo.