lowlevel PCI-coding / Amithlon

[Ratte]

You mean 2/3 radeon-code ... and 1/3 must be cut-off for P96-related code (NDA).

[strim]

Originally Posted by Ratte

You mean 2/3 radeon-code ... and 1/3 must be cut-off for P96-related code (NDA).

I think you should carefully read the GPL license.

Some people call GPL "viral", because if you stick together GPL-based code and additional code in one program, that additional code (which you supposedly signed NDA for) must also be distributed under GPL terms! In other words, you can't release only "2/3" of the source, you have to release the whole source to the program, or you are breaking the GPL license terms.

The authors are specifically licensing their works under GPL to avoid the situation where their code is redistributed as closed source.

Using BSD licensed code however is safe in this situation (as it does permit binary-only/closed source re-release).

[XDelusion]

I just want to know if this is still going to be released, code or no code, I want to use it!

[Ratte]

Originally Posted by strim

I think you should carefully read the GPL license.

Some people call GPL "viral", because if you stick together GPL-based code and additional code in one program, that additional code (which you supposedly signed NDA for) must also be distributed under GPL terms! In other words, you can't release only "2/3" of the source, you have to release the whole source to the program, or you are breaking the GPL license terms.

The authors are specifically licensing their works under GPL to avoid the situation where their code is redistributed as closed source.

Using BSD licensed code however is safe in this situation (as it does permit binary-only/closed source re-release).

Under this situation it is impossible to release some kind of what ever code.
The Radeon-bios-interpreter is well documented on every plattform, so everyone can say it came from gpl-based sources.
On the other side I have the permission to use the p96-ddk to write drivers, but it is not allowed to spread the sources or parts of the ddk.

[XDelusion]

Originally Posted by Ratte

Under this situation it is impossible to release some kind of what ever code.
The Radeon-bios-interpreter is well documented on every plattform, so everyone can say it came from gpl-based sources.
On the other side I have the permission to use the p96-ddk to write drivers, but it is not allowed to spread the sources or parts of the ddk.

Why aren't you allowed?

[strim]

Originally Posted by Ratte

Under this situation it is impossible to release some kind of what ever code.

If your program includes any GPL licensed source, then you're breaking the licence if you don't release the source. This seems to be widely misunderstood in the Amiga community...

The Radeon-bios-interpreter is well documented on every plattform, so everyone can say it came from gpl-based sources.

There's a difference between reusing someone else's code OR treating it as documentation, to write your own implementation. If you used GPL source as an information/documentation (not directly as a part of your program), there is no problem.

On the other side I have the permission to use the p96-ddk to write drivers, but it is not allowed to spread the sources or parts of the ddk.

In case of GPL code you're not allowed to close the source of your program (provided it includes any GPL-licensed code). So it seems you have a legal problem anyway . That's why I said you should carefully read the GPL licence before doing any kind (be it binary or source) of release of your program.

If you have any doubts, consult your lawyer (I am not a lawyer, but I consider myself informed when it comes to open source licenses).

[Locutus]

I think the bigger problem then the GPL license violation is perhaps more the eternal Amiga curse of seeing everything as "crown jewels" to be eternally hoarded in ones dragon lair of doom.

Dear lord, how evil it would be if example code would exist for a 1990's graphics driver system :-)