ipf sourcecode availability

[BuZz]

as requested a new thread ...

In short: Yes, it's already been given to several people & institutions. Major obstacle for some time now: We don't want to see the code abused commercially. Hardcore GPLers won't touch anything they can't infect virally. Others need GPL just to feel good. Still looking for a way to make them happy somehow. Maybe with plain format spec, which, after so many changes and rewrites, needs to be written from scratch. All manpower in the last two years was spent on making KryoFlux a reality.

abused commercially? in what way? I think this reason (feels like an excuse) has no basis in reality. Please can you explain this further.

regarding gpl: you don't have to use the gpl license. infecting virally / feeling good? not sure I understand you. It's more about the fact that without the source and file format specs, all the data is preserved into a closed format. If I want to build the library on platform X Y Z I have to sign an NDA or send you some hardware? Do we have to one day reverse engineer your project because you decide to kill it off ?

Personally it feels to be as though something isn't being said regarding this, and there will always be "some reason" why it remains closed . As with the page that states why it isn't currently open, has reasons that translate as "you are too stupid to understand it so there is no point".

I'll ask again in 5 years. I have a feeling there will be the same or new reasons

(I would love you to prove me completely wrong also )

[Jeff_HxC2001]

Originally Posted by BuZz

abused commercially? in what way? I think this reason (feels like an excuse) has no basis in reality. Please can you explain this further.

I think he talk about this kind of thing :

Example :
Original project :

http://hxc2001.free.fr/floppy_drive_...Floppyemulator

The copycat commercial version :
http://www.floppyemulator.com/ (365$...)

...

[mr.vince]

Or various games CDs with the tech on it... needless to say unlicensed...

Currently wrapping up KryoFlux write support, so all other stuff has to wait.

[BuZz]

Originally Posted by Jeff_HxC2001

I think he talk about this kind of thing :

Example :
Original project :

http://hxc2001.free.fr/floppy_drive_...Floppyemulator

The copycat commercial version :
http://www.floppyemulator.com/ (365$...)

...

ffmpeg has plenty of people utilizing their code and breaking their license too. On a much larger scale than anyone would with ipf. Should the code be closed because of this? The good outweighs the bad, with many projects using the code correctly. A license could forbid certain uses in this case. They chase up abuses and much of the time companies respond and adhere to the license.

In terms of cds with games on, you can stop large companies doing it with license restrictions. i guess you wont stop a few people on ebay, but this is not exactly bigtime. with this thinking nothing would ever be released.

Should I have not licensed exotica as open because a few people might sell it on cd or use the data without attribution ? or should xbmc not be worked on because a few people might sell machines with it preloaded on to try and make a few extra quid. makes no sense to me. I also think the problem will be far less than you think. Most people don't give a sh*t about preserving old floppies - in fact im pretty sure game sellers would continue to use cracked versions of games on their cds.

anyway, i look forward to hear an update on this when you decide what to do.

[Mr Creosote]

As long as the format is not open, all these games cannot truly be considered preserved. It's as simple as that.

[StingRay]

That's, quite frankly, nonsense. In my opinion anyway. You can access the data on the IPF's, the dll is public and there are docs for it. Why do you need the source anyway? The data IS preserved, it doesn't depend on the format being open sourced or not.

[BuZz]

Reliant on libraries being available for your platform - I actually had an HPPA server some years ago and wanted to play with it on that and of course couldn't. I don't consider the data truly preserved as long as the wrapper/container format is closed (and code to create). So long as it is opened up before the project is ditched or the developers get run over by a bus, then I guess things will be ok. but i think there would be more interest in it, and better (any) support on certain platforms (uae ports on some handhelds etc), if it was open.

I still think much of the reasoning isn't "valid" anyway, and doesn't compute with my brain.

computer history is full of people having to reverse engineer containers for data, from word processing, to network packets, to video data. I don't like the thought that this will become another.

[StingRay]

Originally Posted by BuZz

Reliant on libraries being available for your platform - I actually had an HPPA server some years ago and wanted to play with it on that and of course couldn't. I don't consider the data truly preserved as long as the wrapper/container format is closed (and code to create).

I understand where you're coming from but I won't ever agree with saying that the data is not preserved only because there is no possibility to read it on some particular systems. Thing is, the data can be accessed, how and on which system is not relevant when it comes to the definition of "preserved".

[BuZz]

that's ok, we don't have to agree on it

Originally Posted by StingRay

I understand where you're coming from but I won't ever agree with saying that the data is not preserved only because there is no possibility to read it on some particular systems. Thing is, the data can be accessed, how and on which system is not relevant when it comes to the definition of "preserved".

So with this reasoning we don't need to even archive disk images. Because the disks can be read on an amiga system.

Quite frankly I don't understand the whole issue about "people will use our code to profit". Yes I can see it. The next big apple product will be iDump - The fabulous disk ripper!

There isn't much money to be made here. And even if someone managed to make some money off of it - Good for them!

"Hardcore GPLers won't touch anything they can't infect virally.", what? I seriously hope this is a bad joke and not a case of tinfoil-hatism.

[StingRay]

Originally Posted by BuZz

that's ok, we don't have to agree on it

Indeed.

Originally Posted by spectral

So with this reasoning we don't need to even archive disk images. Because the disks can be read on an amiga system.

Care to elaborate? Because I fail to see what this has to do with IPF's. Also, you don't really want to tell me that all archive formats on Amiga are public, do you?

Originally Posted by StingRay

Care to elaborate? Because I fail to see what this has to do with IPF's. Also, you don't really want to tell me that all archive formats on Amiga are public, do you?

What does amiga formats have to do with anything?

The issue is simple: If there is no way to compile the code yourself on whatever system you want (or change the code so it does indeed compile on some other system/different compiler/different runtimes/whatever) then what archiving have you achieved? This has 0% to do with being able to read the code or understand what it is doing. It has 100% to do with being able to, a hundred years from now or whenever, ensure that the data is not just preserved but that you can actually use the data as well.

So far I cannot see one valid point being made about why you shouldn't release the source for a project like this:
* Someone will "steal" the code and profit - really?
* GPL people put viruses in their code - Nonsense.
* People will repackage it with malware - Yes because for big open source projects like firefox you see a million virus/trojan/spyware infected packages? Not really..
* We are working on something else so we don't have any time - Yes it takes a couple of minutes to pack it into a tarball, or clone the repo to github.

If the reason is "we want to profit from this before we release the code" (which is my understanding from reading between the lines) that is ok. but then give us the information straight up and don't give other nonsensical arguments why you don't want to, to mask the fact. Honesty can sometimes be good...

[StingRay]

Originally Posted by spectral

What does amiga formats have to do with anything?

"Answering" my question with another question, classic!

Originally Posted by spectral

The issue is simple: If there is no way to compile the code yourself on whatever system you want (or change the code so it does indeed compile on some other system/different compiler/different runtimes/whatever) then what archiving have you achieved? This has 0% to do with being able to read the code or understand what it is doing. It has 100% to do with being able to, a hundred years from now or whenever, ensure that the data is not just preserved but that you can actually use the data as well.

And in 100 years suddenly NO machine exists anymore which is able to read the data? No virtual machines (they have all vanished in 100 years), no PC's, nothing. Sure thing... And of course, all disassemblers have vanished too, I forgot! I can understand why people want to have the IPF format open sourced but these reasons are quite senseless.

To answer your question. No, there are tons of formats that aren't open. And do you like that this is the way it is? I don't see how that benefits anyone.

You can run stuff in virtual machines and even dig out a computer from a museum if you wanted. You can also reverse engineer, because that is such a wonderful experience and it's so fun to do twice the ammount of work which you didn't have to do if it was an open specification.

[Mr Creosote]

StingRay: Your opinion is your opinion, but it is not shared by any official national or international body responsible for long time archiving, though. There is a reason no (for example) national library uses closed formats for anything and that reason is simple. What you call "nonsense" is what scientists and politicians working in the field agreed on a long time ago.

Don't get me wrong; I don't believe the SPS people are under any obligation to release either ideas, source or documentation. What they have created is theirs. All I'm trying to point out is that the project does not fulfil the accepted standards of preservation/archiving of digital information (yet). I'm sure it will, someday.

[StingRay]

Originally Posted by spectral

To answer your question. No, there are tons of formats that aren't open. And do you like that this is the way it is? I don't see how that benefits anyone.

While it would of course be very nice if all formats would be open sourced I have also no problems to live with (for now) closed formats such as IPF. What counts for me is that I can access the data and there are numerous ways to do just that with IPF's so it's fine for me.

Like, we have a lot of DMS images on Amiga, that format was also never made public (to my knowledge at least), yet nobody really complained about that and happily used these images. And eventually, someone took the time, reversed the format and ported the unpacker to portable C code. I don't see why this, if needed, shouldn't be possible with the IPF format too.

Originally Posted by Mr Creosote

StingRay: Your opinion is your opinion, but it is not shared by any official national or international body responsible for long time archiving, though.

Might be true or not, doesn't change the fact that the data IS preserved. You can access it so where's the problem?

Originally Posted by Mr Creosote

There is a reason no (for example) national library uses closed formats for anything and that reason is simple. What you call "nonsense" is what scientists and politicians working in the field agreed on a long time ago.

And that reason is? Also, do you believe in anything politicians decide? (Just a rhetorical question!)

[fiath]

Guys, I have to chip in here quickly:

1) We ourselves initiated discussions on opening the format because we want to do it. We know we need do it. Things have just got in the way.

2) That stuff on the wiki is years old, and most of it no longer applies. We should delete it actually.

3) It *does* take time to sit down together and nail down exactly what we want to do, and what license we are going to use. We can't just tar the source and send it out. We need to have a plan that we all agree on.

Once the writing stuff is done, we'll pick this up again. Give us a little while, and then please complain if we don't.

[mr.vince]

Originally Posted by spectral

* GPL people put viruses in their code - Nonsense.
* People will repackage it with malware - Yes because for big open source projects like firefox you see a million virus/trojan/spyware infected packages? Not really..

I referred to the viral nature of the GPL licence.

Originally Posted by spectral

* We are working on something else so we don't have any time - Yes it takes a couple of minutes to pack it into a tarball, or clone the repo to github.

Now I know why some open source stuff looks so awful and lacks useful documentation...

[BuZz]

Originally Posted by mr.vince

I referred to the viral nature of the GPL licence.



Now I know why some open source stuff looks so awful and lacks useful documentation...

no. it is a license. the "virus" argument is one of FUD. as with any license it just gives the creator some protection over their code. for the sake of the gpl, it ensures changes must be fed back. comparing to a virus is typical of scaremongering rather than looking at the purpose.

2nd comment is rather silly really - What has the packing/releasing of an app have to do with it - documentation is often managed on the repo anyway) - sure "some" open projects lack documentation and others have plenty of it - much like any software..

[BuZz]

Originally Posted by fiath

Guys, I have to chip in here quickly:

1) We ourselves initiated discussions on opening the format because we want to do it. We know we need do it. Things have just got in the way.

2) That stuff on the wiki is years old, and most of it no longer applies. We should delete it actually.

3) It *does* take time to sit down together and nail down exactly what we want to do, and what license we are going to use. We can't just tar the source and send it out. We need to have a plan that we all agree on.

Once the writing stuff is done, we'll pick this up again. Give us a little while, and then please complain if we don't.

1) sounds good / understandable when it comes to such projects and free time.

2) update rather than delete might suffice

3) agreed. licensed and done properly is good. I believe I have left at least a few years since i last brought this up here, but it sounds like you have it in hand.

I'll still be here to bring it up again if needed - no worries ;-)