Re: [ql-users] Isn't it open source?
In a message dated 15/10/03 17:29:57 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 15/10/03 07:11:12 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2 - the sources have everything needed but an Assembler to be readily compiled. You never know. Even that might change. (An aside from a small mouse-like thing in the background)Oh, you mean no Assembler will be necessary,the sources will self assemble ("no assembly required") ?Wolfgang
What a wonderful idea! No assembly would be truly terrific! I wish that that is what I meant.
I merely meant that GWASS can certainly now be used in the compilation ofSMSQ/E in place of Qmac given a true 68020+ but this machine restriction could be at least partially removed given time.
George
Re: [ql-users] Isn't it open source?
On 16 Oct 2003 at 3:31, Phoebus R. Dokos (Φοίβος Ρ. Ντό wrote: On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:46:55 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You fail to see the argument. Linux (or anything else) if its license is already a Free Software License by definition it cannot be turned into something that is NOT Free Software. On the other hand if something is NOT Free Software it CAN be turned into Free Software (with the provision that it this cannot be revoked as it defeats the term). Therefore you can move from a closed to a Free Software license but not vice versa. Especially not when the software that you are porting is already covered by a F.S. license. Well that's exactly my argument. Their licence cn't be turned into this one and this one not into theirs. So why is ours the bad guy and not theirs? This is the same argument than the one before. You take something that has its own licence and ask that SMSQ/E be changed to accomodate it. But I am not asking for anything. I am merely making a point why SMSQ/E is for some reasons unsuitable at times for software development by proponents of the Free Software idea. But this is more of the same. They want to work (only) under that licence, so ours must be changed. I challenge that basic asuumption. Let them change and accept our point of view. (...) I'll also presume that they did not approach, for whatever reason, the original author, or whoever maintains the source code, to have their patches incorporated into the software. I assume that they have no intention to do so at all as they both disagree with the current license as it it's more like the carrot and the stick kind of thing... OK, that doesn't change a thing (...) That is incorrect. If you had NO access to the sources of the original software then your patch is legal regardless of what it does and if it affects the system software. Otherwise half of the globe with say new explorer replacements for windows (in effect patches) or third party bug fixes to shell.dll for example (again WIndows) would be illegal, but they arent :-) I beg to differ. Are you saying these things patch the windows executable code? Not! (...) It did but the point I was making is that all the discussions for the past year on the conditions that the license makes plus the patching of SMSQ/E etc, lead anybody with an average brain like myself to think that is prohibited by the license to patch the software externally And distribute the patch commercially or as a free software. Well, sorry but have you actually read the licence itself? If a passage there sn't clear, I'd be willing to look at it ! (and the question of agents won't be in there because it hasn't anything to do with it). (...) Not to me, if I understood your example correctly. See above. Indeed (...) No, not necessarily, but at least IMHO for it to BE free software and to fullfil to the maximum the idea of multiple input to the sources it should be. Of course I cannot tell you what to do (or disrespect the license in any case) but nonetheless it is a precondition to free software. The whole post was actually the reply to your previous comment that more or less SMSQ/E is Free Software. My position is that it is not. If Internet access is a precondition to that, then, indeed, it isn't. Remember though, there was already free software even before the Internet existed. (..) Hehe I wish it would. I would be willing to change my name as well :-) Regardless of that there are several m68k groups out there with many many members that could be interested. But for many people the hassle of writing even an email, and wait just takes the fun out of it :-) Oh, but they then would be active contributors? (...) I have seen an SMSQ/E version for the QXL I sent running under Linux myself. Unfortunately this version is unofficial. The person that did it has strong opinions for Free Software himself and he will not release any changes or even submit them to the tree. OK, that is too bad. Beside that however I think that in order to see if I am right, we have to release it through the net. Even for the heck of it... you never know until you try as my dad always told me :-) Sure, but then it will be too late . Depends. From very to not at all. That doesn't change the fact that a maintained *something* looks a lot better than an *unmaintained* other thing. Well and if you ask me for the source code and get it by mail, this is not proof of it being maintained, of course. To close, all my responses to this thread (which I think is a very nice thread and it was extremely civilised with a lot of nice and constructive disagreement btw) yes, aren't we just the league of extraordinary gentlemen here? are not meant to instruct ANYONE what to do. I don't think anybody would have construed it as such. I cannot tell nobody what to do with their lives let alone their software. Again I repeat why things may not
Re: [ql-users] Isn't it open source?
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:17:30 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 16 Oct 2003 at 3:31, Phoebus R. Dokos ( . wrote: On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:46:55 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You fail to see the argument. Linux (or anything else) if its license is already a Free Software License by definition it cannot be turned into something that is NOT Free Software. On the other hand if something is NOT Free Software it CAN be turned into Free Software (with the provision that it this cannot be revoked as it defeats the term). Therefore you can move from a closed to a Free Software license but not vice versa. Especially not when the software that you are porting is already covered by a F.S. license. Well that's exactly my argument. Their licence cn't be turned into this one and this one not into theirs. So why is ours the bad guy and not theirs? Nobody's is THE BAD GUY. I tend to think that the latter is better but as I said again, a license is in the final analysis a decision of the author of the software. Whatever he does with it it's his business... To add a small thing to that and to close my contributions to the thread as, however interesting, starts to take a lot of time... Without changing the license as it stands, I would feel a lot more comfortable with it, if software by any author could maintain its own license instead of collectively be assosicated with the major license (What Marcel assumed as true). That way you can keep the license as it stands for the original author and choose one license that permits redistribution for additional code submissions. This I feel would solve a lot of problems... not all but at least several :-) Phoebus -- Visit the QL-FAQ at: http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/faq/ (Still uploading stuff!) Visit the uQLX-win32 homepage at: http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/uqlx.html Visit the uQLX-mac home page at:http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/uqlxmac.html
Re: [ql-users] Isn't it open source?
On 14 Oct 2003 at 13:55, Bill Cable wrote: (...) I knew the QL was very special the first time I switch it on and am pleased to see it receive credit as a key motivator for the Open Source Movement. :-) Just to put a further cat amongt the pigeons (I'm in a provocative mood today), let me ask whether SMSQ/E, as it stands now, really ISN'T open source. Let's define open source as being software which you can do anything with: Compile it, change it, distribute it in source and complied form. With SMSQ/E there are two restrictions: 1 - IF (and that is IF!!) you want your code in the official version, it has to be vetted by me - or rather by the registrar. Is that SOO unreasonable? 2 - You may NOT distribute the compiled code (unless for testing purposes etc...). BUT 1 - you can become a reseller 2 - the sources have everything needed but an Assembler to be readily compiled. Wolfgang -- Bill
Re: [ql-users] Isn't it open source?
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:11:17 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 14 Oct 2003 at 13:55, Bill Cable wrote: (...) I knew the QL was very special the first time I switch it on and am pleased to see it receive credit as a key motivator for the Open Source Movement. :-) Just to put a further cat amongt the pigeons (I'm in a provocative mood today), let me ask whether SMSQ/E, as it stands now, really ISN'T open source. Let's define open source as being software which you can do anything with: Compile it, change it, distribute it in source and complied form. With SMSQ/E there are two restrictions: 1 - IF (and that is IF!!) you want your code in the official version, it has to be vetted by me - or rather by the registrar. Is that SOO unreasonable? 2 - You may NOT distribute the compiled code (unless for testing purposes etc...). BUT 1 - you can become a reseller 2 - the sources have everything needed but an Assembler to be readily compiled. Wolfgang The following abstract is I think necessary as a reference to what is really free software -At least that's the definition I adopt- (Full version at http://www.fsf.org): - Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.'' Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission. You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way. The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity. The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is ok if there is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program (since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to make them. In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software. In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the software is not free. However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central freedoms. For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it protects them. Thus, you may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies. Now my note: I would have no problem with a restricted version of these if that pertained only to the money part: ie You have the right to give the software away for free but if you choose
Re: [ql-users] Isn't it open source?
On 15 Oct 2003 at 3:59, Phoebus R. Dokos (è á. ç) wrote: (...) The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). SMSQE - OK The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. SMSQE OK The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). SMSQE OK (for source code)* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. SMSQE OK (for source code)* * and, of course, if it is incorporated into the official version! A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission. This is all true for the source code, with the exception that your aren't allowed to charge money for it. You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist True for SMSQE . If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way. ALSO true for SMSQ/E since, if you don't want your code included in the official version, you can do with it what you like, except distribute binaries and put it up on a web site. . The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity. Still true here. The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is ok if there is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program (since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to make them. There is a restriction here for the binaries. In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software. You do have this access. In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the software is not free. Revoking the licence would only means that you revoke for the future - everything don euntil then would stand as is. (the rest also applies to SMSQE) Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Isn't it open source?
On 15 Oct 2003, at 10:56, Phoebus R. Dokos (Φοίβος Ρ. Ντό wrote: (...) Well that's restriction 1... As seen below you have to be able to distribute legitimate copies both in binary and in source form so... it's not OK That's the restriction, alright. (...) To your (*) that alone breaks the premise of Free Software. Plus that you really do not have FREE access to the source code (Free as in Freedom) as the Source code is only available by the registrar. Although it is free (as in beer to get) that's not the point. There should be the possibility of multiple points of access to the code (ie me putting up a website where everyone that wants it can download it). Well, you CAN give it away on a CD, it's just Web access that is restricted. To that I have to add that I have no problem paying for media and shipping charges when I get the source code in a CD, from you or anyone else. Yes, I don't think that's the problem. (...) As I said I have no problem with the money part. Indeed I find it better than charging money (although it might help to charge copying fees maybe that could even be sent to TT). OK, let's forget the money part, then. However you are not *REALLY* allowed to distribute copies as a further distribution even unmodified turns the software into unofficial! (It's in the license). A copy made by a third party (accepting the money precondition as it stands now) should be official in itself. Why? Define official. Is there an official linux? No, of course not. If you were to make enormous changes to the source code, distribute it with instrctuins to compile and and everybody used that, would the official bit make any difference? () Again I beg to differ. You HAVE to be able to distribute binaries. As you said, there we difer. Plus if you want your changes to be part of the sources we HAVE to notify one person only. A decision is not made collectively which defeats the purpose. It's fundamentaly different (and this is in no way a critisicm on your objectivity personally, just a fact) when one person is in charge than a set of persons operating in a democratic environment. I prefer the latter as it fits my personal set of beliefs. Ah, I see where this is going now. Yes, I can understand that. So, you want a say of what goes into the sources or not. Seeing as many of us can't agree on what direction everything should take, getting a general agreement will not necessarily be easy - opr even feasible. The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity. Still true here. Not really if you use binaries created by you, these are unofficial So what? (...) There is a restriction here for the binaries. Exactly right and it's a big obstacle to the free software idea. Moreover from the wording above that means also that when sold SMSQ/E should also include the sources if the user wants them Well, I would really take exception to the sources being sold. There is nothing to stop a reseller to sell a copy of the binaries, and distribute the sources along with it, for free. You do have this access. Not really. Free access in the internet age, means that the software can be accessed by anyone at any time (ie on a server) via CVS or otherwise. Even if you do not choose to do so, somebody else that has the sources should be allowed to give the sources without them being deemed unofficial. It's logical to have a central point of access to maintain uniformity, but acceptance of this should be voluntary by the users (I don't know of anyone that wouldn't agree to this as long as they HAVE the option) and not compulsory. Now users don't have that option. It's a matter of perspective first and foremost. Everyone would prefer to get their sources from the official point if they were given the choice, but this HAS to be a choice. Again you can distribute the sources (though not through the Internet). I fail to see why that is so paramount. (...) Not all of it but anyway, I think I made my point too :-) Happy you did. Wolfgang - www.scp-paulet-lenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Isn't it open source?
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:58:03 +0200, Wolfgang Lenerz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Wolfgang, Snipped the whole previous message As answering to individual points makes a little difficult to concentrate my whole argument I will write a response with two examples on why the current license can in effect hamper developments and why it's extremely confusing in itself. I will also add why I believe that Internet distributions is imperative in my (very humble) opinion Example 1. Case 1. Lets assume that IOSS is modified and drivers from other OSes are capable to be ported. Lets also assume that these are linux drivers and by default Free Software. Even if possible to integrate a Linux driver to SMSQ/E we cannot do so as its license clashes with the SMSQ/E license (as you mentioned yourself in Marcel's argument of distribution under two separate licenses). That in itself closes the door to systems software from other platforms. (Doesn't affect applications software of course) Case 2. Lets take QLwIP that Peter wrote (and works as we can see from his emails). If we want to give SMSQ/E TCP functionality by somehow integrating QLwIP into SMSQ/E then we again clash with its license (QLwIP is a port of A. Dunkels wIP that is Free Software). It is illegal to do so therefore on the regular version of SMSQ/E. The only way that therefore you could integrate something like that with the OS would be in the form of patches, something that was the cause of a big brawl in this list when it came to that Software Pirates in our midst thread if you recall. Here therefore comes Example 2 (Hypothetical situation that may or may not bore resemblence to actual persons and events) Example 2. Suppose UU (TT +1 ;-) at one point in time gives permission to Marcel Graf and Peter Kilgus to sell a specific version of SDQOS. (SuperDuperQL Operating System). Marcel goes and makes a machine called Futura and Peter an emulator called SDQE (SuperDuperQLEmulator). They both get no permission to modify the source (the OS at that point is proprietary software) and they carry on doing so. At one point UU decides to open up the sources more or less but makes a license like the SMSQ/E current one. Neither Marcel or Peter acquire the sources but want to make their creation compatible. Peter patches the emulator to behave differently and Marcel creates a patch for the software (again he doesn't base his work on the sources and neither does Peter). The result is a compatible SDQOS (at least for the user) with the newest changed license version. Are they breaking the law or violating the license? Marcel even goes on and allows his agents (C C systems) to sell the early version of the OS patched just as he did before. Doesn't the agency legal principle make his agents legal as well (if he was legal in the first place)? You can see how confusing the status can be just by that. Thirdly. here is why I think that internet distribution is necessary. Point 1. Linux (the DEFINITION of Free Software) would not be possible without the Internet Point 2. No OTHER Free Software, nor the GNU project would be possible without the Internet Point 3. Internet distribution of the sources can lure MC68K hobbyists to the platform whereas Wolfgang Lenerz known and respected thoughout the QL world but most probably an unknown entity to say an Atari ST user or a simple coldfire board manufacturer/hobbyist will not (Unless of course he changes his name to Linus Torvalds ;-) hehe just a joke here) Point 4. Survival of a platform is based on adoption. If you throw a really Free SMSQ/E on say Savannah or SourceForge you will get at least 10 or 20 people to have a look-see. If you win half (sic!) of them you gained a potential whole new tree of QL users (and developers). Point 5. A publicly available CVS server gives any project the air of maintenance. A snail-mail only distribution does not (That of course applies to a stagnant webpage with a couple of files to download but still the exposure is greater). This air is attractive to many people. There are many other reasons but this is the most important I think Phoebus -- Visit the QL-FAQ at: http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/faq/ (Still uploading stuff!) Visit the uQLX-win32 homepage at: http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/uqlx.html Visit the uQLX-mac home page at:http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/uqlxmac.htmlS
