Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion => Topic started by: Heiroglyph on May 16, 2016, 01:31:19 AM
-
Excuse me for being a bit vague, but I'm trying to avoid the use of a name similar to "P9x" even in passing so that there is zero chance I get slapped with a trademark or copyright dispute.
All current code is based on WinUAE and E-UAE, the rest is from my interpretation of what those were doing. I've never seen an official DDK.
I've worked on an open source RTG driver on and off for a while and lately I'm seeing more people doing the same, which is awesome for the community.
I've just started a git repository for an open DDK for Amiga compatible drivers at https://github.com/jeperk/OpenVideoDDK
It's very early, I've just started getting old info together into the repository and I'm planning to revive my unfinished example OpenPCI Voodoo3 driver as time permits.
Most of it is based on WinUAE, but with hopefully correct translations of the PSSO_ offsets used in WinUAE to actual C structures.
I've also taken the comments in WinUAE and based on the code, written what I think are correct SAS/C style stubs for most functions.
It is not complete by any means, but having the information available can't hurt.
If anyone wants to contribute info or code, feel free to contact me.
Edit: I renamed the project to correct a typo (capital I in Video, thanks polluks), so the URL has changed.
Edit 2: Now under LGPL due to problematic nature of GPL and linking in Amiga-like systems.
-
if you want a proper restart, without being (potentially) hounted around the woods like a partisan now and again, a clean reimplementation could be desirable. lets say one based or aros cybergraphics.
thats just a remark, because its been discussed before, while it has never been seriously considered an option. welcome back, btw. ;)
-
I'm not sure what can be said about distributing source with no signed NDA. If you don't want people using your ABI, don't release binaries to the public.
I just think it's important to be able to find info on writing drivers for the platform.
Amiga 68k is currently dominated by this API, so that's what I'm trying to give an example of.
Aros 68k can use the .card files by way of the UAE wrapper code Aros includes, so it helps them too.
It's not a new RTG API standard like the Aros CGX RTG, just more information on using the current one most of us have.
-
I'm not sure what can be said about distributing source with no signed NDA. If you don't want people using your ABI, don't release binaries to the public.
I just think it's important to be able to find info on writing drivers for the platform.
Amiga 68k is currently dominated by this API, so that's what I'm trying to give an example of.
Aros 68k can use the .card files by way of the UAE wrapper code Aros includes, so it helps them too.
It's not a new RTG API standard like the Aros CGX RTG, just more information on using the current one most of us have.
im just saying aros cybergraphics is using the reverse engineered cgx api, to which p96 must stay compatible anyway, so cgx is de facto the standard api, not the p96. and while p96 may also be useful to aros68k, it is not my main and only concern, just that with aros code base you have a clean reimplementation of said standard, you can secure the future development on. with the p96 situation doesnt seem as certain, especially as you already might have noticed, you try to avoid to mention it openly.
-
I understand that a replacement is highly desirable, this is just the itch I chose to scratch at the moment.
Stay tuned for more GPL code coming for various projects I've been sitting on.
-
im saying this for the sake of lenghty discussions we have here and elsewhere on legality of certain appoaches, we could have been spared, and concentrated on actual problems instead, if we had steer clear of this mess.
-
Excellent move :)
You can also add information present in the actual working driver of the SAGA (VampireV2) driver which was developed by Jason McMullan and are also "legaly clean".
https://github.com/ezrec/saga-drivers
-
Very nice link. I wasn't aware of that.
Glancing over the source it looks very similar to some I don't have clean enough to release yet, but I'm sure I'll learn a lot from his code. He's good.
His are MIT licensed which is great, but I'm more concerned with people using open source code to their financial advantage without giving back to the community at this point.
If they learn from mine and write their own from scratch, that's wonderful, but if they make changes to my code then I'd like them to release it for the benefit of the community.
If Aros or UAE developers want to relicense some of my (eventual) code then I'll give them permission as long as it's open. They've given me enough over the years that it's the least I can do.
-
Excuse me for being a bit vague, but I'm trying to avoid the use of a name similar to "P9x" even in passing so that there is zero chance I get slapped with a trademark or copyright dispute.
Problem is: This doesn't change a thing concerning the requirement to license the P96 API. You're confusing the copyright on the code with the legal constraint to license the API for new drivers. Just reimplementing the DDK doesn't help there.
To solve the problem, you'd need to buy P96 - i.e. become its owner. This would allow you to re-define the license conditions.
This is a legal problem, not a technical problem.
-
imho if p96 binaries are being used against the intention of their owners, they can be simply taken down from the net, where they have been made available.
-
Just ignore Thomas, really. He is not a lawyer, and he is not paying attention to what European courts have concluded on this, even in his own country.
-
Quick sumup: APIs are not protected by copyrights - code is.
-
imho if p96 binaries are being used against the intention of their owners, they can be simply taken down from the net, where they have been made available.
If they are used according to the conditions of the owners, there is no problem. Why hurt many fair users by unfair usage of some.
The problem is really that: You seem to want to build a new Amiga, and Amiga operating system. That's a noble goal, but instead of building it on solid grounds, projects like this one are build on sand. They open up holes, weak points where software and IP owners can attack quite easily.
If you want an independent open Amiga platform, you have to be serious about it and avoid *any* usage of proprietary software. That includes Kickstart, Workbench and P96. Which implies that you have to recreate *everything* yourself.
You cannot simply take a proprietary solution and hope to get away by attaching a "supposed to be open" interface wrapper around a copyrighted closed source code with (weird) licensing conditions attached to it. That's not how it works.
There are two options:
* Either, do everything yourself. Recreate kickstart, P96, workbench. This will "take a little time", but in the end, you've a project that is legally unreachable and something where you can define the direction, the licenses and the goals.
* Or refrain from patching, touching or wrapping proprietary software, and instead try to cooperate with the owners and try to negotiate to get what you want. This may include some payment of money, it may also "take a little time", but in the end, you may also have a solid product on solid grounds.
I personally consider "option b" the more promising one, and I'm not quite as pessimistic as you are in how far such goals can be met, but despite my opinion, "option a" is certainly also possible, and if you believe that this is better option, you should start right away.
What is not possible is to continuously interfere with copyrights and licenses of the owners and rights holders of proprietary software - it's creating a weak spot in the whole architecture and something I really consider a very very bad idea.
"Clean room development" or "cooperate". Take your poison.
-
Quick sumup: APIs are not protected by copyrights - code is.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/google-oracle-setting-up-jurors-to-fail-in-api-copyright-retrial-judge-says/
says
Oracle is seeking $1 billion in damages after successfully suing the search giant for infringing Oracle's Java APIs that were once used in the Android operating system. A federal appeals court has ruled (PDF) that the "declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of the API packages are entitled to copyright protection." The decision reversed the outcome of the first San Francisco federal trial heard before Alsup in 2012.
Sure, this is jurisdiction-dependent, and other locales may have different rules in place. But for at least some of us, we can't at the moment go running around with other peoples' APIs as we please.
-
That's not in Europe, so what is your point?
I too can toss around links...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-05-02/copyright-can-t-block-software-reverse-engineering-court
-
Thomas,
I have the utmost respect for you and your work and I have absolutely no intention of making you mad or arguing with you. In fact, very much the opposite, however, we disagree on this point, so I'd like to make my position clear and discuss rationally.
I'm not patching their code and I'm not using their source.
Because I've never signed a document to receive the DDK, I'm merely a user of their software.
What I'm releasing is merely a piece of non-commercial software that is compatible with their binaries.
I don't believe that the clause you seem to be concerned with applies to this and if it did, I don't believe that it could be legally binding.
This is as clear a case of interoperability as I could think of and that is protected by law in many countries.
-
The question is how sure can you be that the source code in UAE at no point contained (disassembled) P96 code.
Given that the author didn't even bother providing a proper copyright header speaks volumes about you being able to make that call.
All this is offcourse legal fineprint in a case that will most likely never see a court day, but it will for ever be unknown wether you are p###ing on the hard work invested in P96, or if those orginal authors are trying to pull a Kruse.....
-
The question is how sure can you be that the source code in UAE at no point contained (disassembled) P96 code.
Given that the author didn't even bother providing a proper copyright header speaks volumes about you being able to make that call.
All this is offcourse legal fineprint in a case that will most likely never see a court day, but it will for ever be unknown wether you are p###ing on the hard work invested in P96, or if those orginal authors are trying to pull a Kruse.....
From what I understand, Brian King (?) had the DDK legally. Possibly other UAE developers as well.
The Picasso96 installer specifically lists UAE as a supported option, so they were aware that it was used in a GPL'ed application and gave support for it.
The question would really come down to "is UAE legally GPL or does UAE break the Picasso DDK license?"
Given that Picasso explicitly lists UAE as an option, that leads me to believe that UAE does not break the Picasso DDK license.
This is based on UAE and uses the same GPL license, so I believe it to be as legal as UAE.
If I had to read between the lines, I'd say that if you make money off of it, they want their cut. UAE and other GPL drivers are not commercial so there is no cut for them to care about.
-
The question is how sure can you be that the source code in UAE at no point contained (disassembled) P96 code.
Given that the author didn't even bother providing a proper copyright head speaks volumes about you being able to make that call.
All this is offcourse legal fineprint in a case that will most likely never see a court day, but it will for ever be unknown wether you are p###ing of the hard work invested in P96, or if those orginal authors are trying to pull a Kruse.....
Who cares? Sorry to say that we have a phrase in german "als ob ein Sack Reis in China umfallen würde" (Thomas understands it). It is a hobby platform people only doing something on it for fun and hobby, no serious money to earn. P96 was a worthless software now as many other software from the past. The only reason why it suddenly became realistic to ask for money (and the copyright owners obviously only want money but will certainly not invest time in it) is because a small group of dedicated people invested several years in a project because they wanted to realize their NG 68k amiga and they still do not earn money with it. Now Thomas answers that they ask for money for the card, yes as long they do not get the hardware for free they cannot give the cards for free. I vote Thomas for the most senseless discussions in amiga terms (and there are lots of them). If the copyright owners think that anyone is violating copyright by someone then they are free to act. As far as I know Thomas is not and despite that he is involved now for months. In terms of outside world this all is silly anyway, we talk about a super-tiny micro market. Now even some (including Thomas) start to talk about legality of UAE. Acting against opensource community is a dangerous undertaking, I would recommend anyone not to do that... except you want to create maximum number of enemies in short time
-
I would like to make it clear that while I believe I am in the clear legally, if they were still developing and supporting the software I would cut them some slack and not leverage the legal system over courtesy.
By all appearances, they are not a part of the community anymore. At that point, legality is really all that matters IMHO.
-
I would like to make it clear that while I believe I am in the clear legally, if they were still developing and supporting the software I would cut them some slack and not leverage the legal system over courtesy.
By all appearances, they are not a part of the community anymore. At that point, legality is really all that matters IMHO.
I have to agree with you on this one. The only thing keeping it alive is people like you wanting to use it to extend our systems. If they ever updated it and showed even slight new activity it would be a different story. I also have to lean more in agreement with the installer showing UAE as an option pointing that they felt the same way at one time and allowed for it to be used in this way.
This is a great thread and has some interesting insight on how people feel. I would like to keep it clean as it had been. Lets not pollute it and keep the conversation factual and relevant please.
-
I've just changed the license to LGPL at Jason McMullen's suggestion.
There are serious problems with GPL libraries on Amiga-like OSs.
-
Because I've never signed a document to receive the DDK, I'm merely a user of their software.
You're using a closed API, an API that requires licensing. This might be problematic. You're depending your work on a copyrighted source (I assume on the UAE source, right?), a source with - also - unclear license conditions.
-
From what I understand, Brian King (?) had the DDK legally.
I did some research on this. It's not so easy. Brian King got indeed some information on the P96 driver API, but there was never a formal contract. In particular, I would really hesitate to believe (based on that) that he had a license to sub-license or transfer the license to others. However, this is really required by the GPL. So that part of the UAE source does not seem to be under GPL.
In fact, if you check the file, it says "(c) Brian King" in the header, and it does not have the usual GPL clause on top. So it's really questionable in which state this file is, and whether you are allowed to derive any third party work from it. Given that Picasso explicitly lists UAE as an option, that leads me to believe that UAE does not break the Picasso DDK license.
Possibly not, but is it GPL itself? It's at least questionable. For that, Brian King would have to have a transferable license on the DDK, but in fact - he got nothing, no formal contract, no license. If I had to read between the lines, I'd say that if you make money off of it, they want their cut. UAE and other GPL drivers are not commercial so there is no cut for them to care about.
The trouble is now that: While I agree with your conclusion, that's nothing that is formalized in the GPL. You *can* make money from the GPL. T&A would have been much better if they would have put the DDK under CC-BY-NC, or something similar with a NC clause.
In the end, put it what you like, but the license situation is quite unsatisfactory with UAE, or any work derived from an API whose owners consider it proprietary. If you put that under GPL or LGPL, you're putting yourself under some risk - as you release it under (L)GPL and hence make some claims about its availability and possibility to use it in other projects. Promises that currently do not hold, or that at least are unclear, or at least unclear in some countries.
If you call that sloppy licensing from the original authors, I surely agree. But that doesn't mean that the story has to continue like this. What you're currently doing is again a sloppy/risky scheme by not knowing the details and backgrounds.
Again, if you want to be on firm grounds, "re-implementing" a closed source API does not help much. It only continues the trouble. As said, you have two options: Either try to get a valid license (and for (L)GPL, a *transferable* license) from the owners, or reimplement an rtg system with its own API.
So I don't quite see in how far your attempt can possibly clear up the situation. It cannot. It just adds more uncertainty on uncertainty.
-
I've just changed the license to LGPL at Jason McMullen's suggestion.
There are serious problems with GPL libraries on Amiga-like OSs.
mcmullan.. ;) good move. thats at least more convenient in case of aros. openpci might deserve similar treatment. whats jasons involvement, anyway?
btw, the legality of this might still need to be confirmed, imho, before it meets any serious use.
-
in fact - he got nothing, no formal contract, no license.
[...]
If you call that sloppy licensing from the original authors, I surely agree. But that doesn't mean that the story has to continue like this. What you're currently doing is again a sloppy/risky scheme by not knowing the details and backgrounds.
Again, if you want to be on firm grounds, "re-implementing" a closed source API does not help much. It only continues the trouble. As said, you have two options: Either try to get a valid license (and for (L)GPL, a *transferable* license) from the owners, or reimplement an rtg system with its own API.
So I don't quite see in how far your attempt can possibly clear up the situation. It cannot. It just adds more uncertainty on uncertainty.
sloopy licensing.. i literally imagine how this went, under the table, with some loosely worded hints and appointments as the one invitiation to table towards gunnar. no wonder, the subject of these appointments was worth nothing, worth no time to set up any written agreement, and it is still worth nothing or almost nothing. and since the ends went loose once you will hardly be able catch them again let alone bind them together. dont phantasize, that the situation might ever legally improve, it can only get worse, from your point of view. athropy even if gradually. and this concerns many if not most dealings around "amiga" this days, not only p96, but also deeds of the entities you consider secure. probably the only actually legal island aroud here, of any, is whats been developed as open source.
-
I did some research on this. It's not so easy. Brian King got indeed some information on the P96 driver API, but there was never a formal contract. In particular, I would really hesitate to believe (based on that) that he had a license to sub-license or transfer the license to others. However, this is really required by the GPL. So that part of the UAE source does not seem to be under GPL.
In fact, if you check the file, it says "(c) Brian King" in the header, and it does not have the usual GPL clause on top. So it's really questionable in which state this file is, and whether you are allowed to derive any third party work from it. Possibly not, but is it GPL itself? It's at least questionable. For that, Brian King would have to have a transferable license on the DDK, but in fact - he got nothing, no formal contract, no license.
The trouble is now that: While I agree with your conclusion, that's nothing that is formalized in the GPL. You *can* make money from the GPL. T&A would have been much better if they would have put the DDK under CC-BY-NC, or something similar with a NC clause.
In the end, put it what you like, but the license situation is quite unsatisfactory with UAE, or any work derived from an API whose owners consider it proprietary. If you put that under GPL or LGPL, you're putting yourself under some risk - as you release it under (L)GPL and hence make some claims about its availability and possibility to use it in other projects. Promises that currently do not hold, or that at least are unclear, or at least unclear in some countries.
If you call that sloppy licensing from the original authors, I surely agree. But that doesn't mean that the story has to continue like this. What you're currently doing is again a sloppy/risky scheme by not knowing the details and backgrounds.
Again, if you want to be on firm grounds, "re-implementing" a closed source API does not help much. It only continues the trouble. As said, you have two options: Either try to get a valid license (and for (L)GPL, a *transferable* license) from the owners, or reimplement an rtg system with its own API.
So I don't quite see in how far your attempt can possibly clear up the situation. It cannot. It just adds more uncertainty on uncertainty.
Why are you extending your crusade now to UAE? It is really annoying...
BTW I have contacted Tobias Abt (I hope email is still valid) to clarify it or this discussion by hobby attorneys also not knowing the situation will go on forever... it is already boring
-
You're using a closed API, an API that requires licensing. This might be problematic.
Did Tobias and Alexander get a licence from Frank Mariak when they implemented his CGX API in the product they sold and made money from?
Was it problematic for them? (Legally or "morally")
-
Did Tobias and Alexander get a licence from Frank Mariak when they implemented his CGX API in the product they sold and made money from?
Was it problematic for them? (Legally or "morally")
I am in contact with Tobias Abt to (finally) clarify the situation
-
I am in contact with Tobias Abt to (finally) clarify the situation
Best of luck!
-
Why are you extending your crusade now to UAE? It is really annoying...
I'm not on a "crusade for UAE". If I'm on a "crusade for anything", then its that:
Define Licensing properly if you run a project. Define clearly who can use what, and do not blindly hand out sources or APIs or anything without actually defining conditions probably.
If the Amiga history has shown one thing in the past then that this sloppyness has caused much grief. Both for the "professional" (ehem) management at Amiga, or Haage & Partner (Genesis, anyone? Probably a stolen project!) or CBM (ARexx, anyone? Probably a stolen project!)
Folks, if you want to avoid such mistakes made in the past now, do your job right. Don't just take sources blindly "yeah, yeah, all be fine...", but check, ask questions, and even more important, define for your work the conditions under which it can be used. BTW I have contacted Tobias Abt (I hope email is still valid) to clarify it or this discussion by hobby attorneys also not knowing the situation will go on forever... it is already boring
I doubt he'll answer...
-
mcmullan.. ;) good move. thats at least more convenient in case of aros. openpci might deserve similar treatment. whats jasons involvement, anyway?
btw, the legality of this might still need to be confirmed, imho, before it meets any serious use.
Jason is not involved, just someone I have contact with. I gave him a courtesy call before using some of his nice clean driver code from the saga driver.
I'll reply more when I'm not on mobile.
-
Did Tobias and Alexander get a licence from Frank Mariak when they implemented his CGX API in the product they sold and made money from?
A relevant question indeed. I do not know, but from what I know, Village Tronic went for P96 because they didn't want to pay for cybergraphics. Yes, it's kind of ironic.
Was it problematic for them? (Legally or "morally")
There is one important difference, though: What P96 re-implements is the documented, open CGfx API. Its native P96 counterpart is the rtg.library. This API is documented, both for P96 and for CGFx as it is supposed to be used by end-user (client) programs. You find .fd files, and autodocs and includes for all of cybergraphics.library, and all of rtg.library, and these interfaces are of course fine to be used.
What we're talking here about is the closed source, private API between the rtg.library and the hardware drivers. CGfx also has an equivalent for that, and it is also closed source.
So you should probably ask Frank how he feels if you reverse engineer not the CGFx front-end (where there is nothing to be reverse-engineered because the API lies right in front of you in the form of Autodocs and fd files) but the closed source CGFx driver API.
So while I agree that there is certainly something icky about the P96 re-implementation of the cgfx front-end, the situation is not quite as symmetric as you believe.
-
You're using a closed API, an API that requires licensing.
No license is needed for guessing internal APIs, and I would not call them closed as it is becoming more and more "common knowledge" how the APIs work. You cannot force people to unlearn what they have discovered.
The P96 business model is whack, even Apple has not managed to prevent internal APIs from "leaking" (f.lux, total finder etc).
-
No license is needed for guessing internal APIs,
Oh yes, as soon as you hand them out (e.g. as the P96 API to Brian King), you need to define a license. Because it's then no longer "closed". The P96 business model is whack.
Well, let's see what you would have suggested to get some money in return for the development of P96. Oh yes, I forgot. Let norwegian tax payers pay for it....
-
I think you all have sufficiently derailed the OPs thread now to the point of it being completely off topic.
Moderators: Can you pull out all the reply stuff from post #9 and put it in a new thread? Call it P96 License Fiascos or something.
-
Well, let's see what you would have suggested to get some money in return for the development of P96.
I have several times outlined ways for P96 to provide steady income - it's all about having _users_ pay according to ability and free will. Make it open source and even I am willing to pay. People are used to paying tiny monthly contributions for all kinds of things, why not P96. Funding for software development is a heck lot easier than selling APIs under freedom-limiting NDAs, even real world corporations know this by now.
Oh yes, I forgot. Let norwegian tax payers pay for it....
Yes, I have a real life job providing services that the public and society benefit greatly from, even foreigners visiting and studying here. Amiga is hobby, as it is for any sane person. Do you have a problem with that? Today we celebrate our constitution, a celebration that for some reason was illegal for 5 years last century. Who are you to mock my work and what Norwegians decide to use tax money on?
-
Say what you will, but Thomas has some very valid points. Those are the questions I'm hoping to get sorted out by doing what I'm doing. He's just not going along with the easy route and is taking a lot of flack for it.
There are multiple people doing exactly the same thing and calling it a driver, whether it is open or closed source and there have been for the last 15 years or so because the community clearly wants these drivers and has no other way to get them.
Like it or not, we're stuck with this ABI (it's not even an API, it's just an undocumented binary interface) at the moment.
Either I will be contacted or I won't. The worst case is that I'm not contacted at all and we carry on with the status quo.
If I am, why weren't all the others?
If I (or we) are contacted, why wait so long and condone its use in GPL'ed UAE by including it in the installer?
Why not accept registrations if you feel that your 20 year old software is still worth something? Care to update it?
I may not be in the right and I may change my mind based on Thomas' statements, those of another user or those of the developers, but these are important questions IMHO.
I just think someone needs to blow on this house of cards and see what happens.
-
I have several times outlined ways for P96 to provide steady income - it's all about having _users_ pay according to ability and free will.
Given the tyical willingness to pay in Amiga Land, I can ensure you that this generated no self-sustaining income. Actually, I did ask. Amiga is hobby, as it is for any sane person. Do you have a problem with that?
No, the part I have problems with is that you call something "Whack" that is beyond your limited understanding. Open Source might be all nice and certainly justified - specifically if the work is paid for by the tax payer. But I see also reasons why people choose (did and still do) other models. Not everything that is beyond Open Source is "whack". People make choices for reasons. Probably for reasons you do not know, you probably cannot follow, or you do not or do not want to understand.
*That*, Kolla, is the problem I have with you. Closed-minded, unable to see beyond limits of your own experience.
-
Given the tyical willingness to pay in Amiga Land, I can ensure you that this generated no self-sustaining income.
People are willing to pay if the offer makes sense. Self-sustaining income? See "whack".
No, the part I have problems with is that you call something "Whack" that is beyond your limited understanding.
Let me present the business of selling RTG to Amiga for some of my investor friends and see what they think, I am pretty confident the word "whack" will be used. I mean seriously - RTG for an extremely marginal computer system, that has zero value outside of a small group of enthusiasts, and no value at all for retro nostalgics who mostly just want to play games on native chipset. If you think this concept of business has any validity, you are delusional.
Open Source might be all nice and certainly justified - specifically if the work is paid for by the tax payer. But I see also reasons why people choose (did and still do) other models. Not everything that is beyond Open Source is "whack".
And I did not say so, I said the P96 business model is whack, because it is mostly based on (false) assumptions about copyrights and intellectual property laws. There are plenty of cases when closed source is ok, for limited time and usecases, things have limited lifespan, systems that don't have users... once you offer code to the public, as part of an ecosystem, a "standard", something you know will be of general interest of plenty of users and developers (relatively), you damn well should pick an open source model for your product. Or be a huge software company that can guarantee a path forward.
People make choices for reasons. Probably for reasons you do not know, you probably cannot follow, or you do not or do not want to understand.
Yeah, people make idiotic choices all the time, nothing new about that, and I fully understand how it happens. What I fail to understand is how people insist on clinging to a failed and flawed idea for so long. I can only guess it is because admitting failure is too difficult, or because they somehow find satisfaction with the status quo and enjoy their position.
*That*, Kolla, is the problem I have with you. Closed-minded, unable to see beyond limits of your own experience.
I am glad you have problems with me, your views and understanding of how to successfully run an IT enterprise is stuck in the past, discussing with you is like diving into usenet groups from the mid 90ies. Call me narrow minded all you like, coming from someone with your views, that's almost a compliment.
-
We are all middle aged men, so we have money. I have bought software wich I don't have any intend to use ever. Just to support developers.
P96 owners should at least give us a change to support them.
Hopefully this thread woun't be fulled with....
-
Just ignore Thomas, really. He is not a lawyer,
He is not ? Then why is he throwing around legal "dos and don'ts" all the time ?
That could get him a bunch of lawsuits on his back. :rtfm:
Tsk tsk tsk...
-
In fact, if you check the file, it says "(c) Brian King" in the header, and it does not have the usual GPL clause on top. So it's really questionable in which state this file is, and whether you are allowed to derive any third party work from it.
... and if you check the software it's included in and partially builds on (UAE and WinUAE) they are GPL licensed. You don't have to include license information in the source file for it to be enforceable, nor is GPL and copyright mutually exclusive. In fact, GPL builds on the foundations of copyright to be enforceable, and in most of the world it's impossible to even disown a work in terms copyright by other means than transferring the rights.
I agree with you that this project may belong in some sort of legal grey area, but that a file that was contributed to a GPL project has a copyright notice is not grounds for suspicion that it wasn't the intention of the contributor to release it under GPL terms. The license of the work is in the README file of the UAE repo.
Whether he was allowed to release it under those conditions in first place is a different question, of course, but at this point all the indications that the development of the Picasso 96 UAE code are in breach of some other contract are rumors and hearsay. It must be easier to get in touch with the proprietor of the official development kit and Brian King to resolve this, right?
Also, Hieroglyph,
If your code is indeed based on the GPL licensed (Win/)UAE source code, you can't simply re-license it under LGPL without express permission from its contributor(s). I don't know what you think is particularly impractical about the GPL for Amiga, anyway. All you need to do is make sure that the source of any application based on it is available to anyone with a copy of the software.
-
Given the tyical willingness to pay in Amiga Land, I can ensure you that this generated no self-sustaining income.
funny, bacause as far as i observe the willingness to pay is really high in "amiga" land, at least in comparison with the outside world. the problem i see is rather worded with "shut up and take my money!" as some put it. especially in some parts, where things have been and continue to be readily paid up front, but failed to deliver.
-
Please guys, refrain from personal insults, this has been a decent discussion I think.
So lets examine the one case I remember and if anyone has more info on the outcome, chime in.
Elbox created a driver by reverse engineering and/or a alleged pirated DDK.
P96 (I can't remember the company name) told them to pay up or stop.
Elbox said no.
?????
You can still buy Elbox Mediators and software.
What became of that?
Here is a link to one of Elbox's public replies: http://anna.amigazeux.org/comments2.php?view=0974382064&category=news&start=101&103
And here is a reply from Tobias Abt of P96 (interestingly complete with a shout-out to Thomas): https://web.archive.org/web/20040704075635/http://www.vgr.com/mediator/pic96-press.txt
-
... but at this point all the indications that the development of the Picasso 96 UAE code are in breach of some other contract are rumors and hearsay. It must be easier to get in touch with the proprietor of the official development kit and Brian King to resolve this, right?.
exactly.
Also, Hieroglyph,
If your code is indeed based on the GPL licensed (Win/)UAE source code, you can't simply re-license it under LGPL without express permission from its contributor(s). I don't know what you think is particularly impractical about the GPL for Amiga, anyway. All you need to do is make sure that the source of any application based on it is available to anyone with a copy of the software.
good remark. however i think he got exactly that kind of "sloopy allowance" to publish the material he got under the terms he sees fit, as goes the "sloopy" attitude we are discussing here. i know from considerations that gpl in contrary to lgpl is not wery well suitable to include sources in aros repositories, other systems may have other considerations, but in this case the suggestion may have come from jason.
-
Please guys, refrain from personal insults
hope there is no insults on my part, wasnt intended, i hold all the parties in highest respect!
-
Also, Hieroglyph,
If your code is indeed based on the GPL licensed (Win/)UAE source code, you can't simply re-license it under LGPL without express permission from its contributor(s). I don't know what you think is particularly impractical about the GPL for Amiga, anyway. All you need to do is make sure that the source of any application based on it is available to anyone with a copy of the software.
That's true, I was just contemplating that at lunch.
It was originally GPL, so no problem, then Jason brought up how problematic dynamic linking is with a GPL library and it made a lot of sense so I chose to err on the side of safety.
I will rewrite some of it and contact Toni to see if there is a problem.
My C structs are created by looking at his PSSO_ offsets and their sizes to infer the type (he exclusively uses offsets to make it easier in the emulator) and also looking at how he used them, so although not clean-room, it's not copy paste.
If you notice, the places where we do share stucts are not quite the same either. His have additional data for the emulator to use that are not needed by a native driver.
A lot of the comments and separators are leftovers from converting the PSSO_ definitions to structs as I went.
Many of the defines for values are copy pastes, but given the intent of my code I'd hope he would cut some slack on those. I could retype them with new names if needed, but that seems pedantic considering Jason's very similar MIT licensed one that I'm sure Toni is aware of.
The notes.txt comments are lifted almost verbatim from his cpp file and I wrote the stubs myself. That could still be GPL if needed, it's just documentation.
Edit: Actually based on this new info I found (below), I'm not sure Jason was correct.
Both versions of the GPL have an exception to their copyleft, commonly called the system library exception. If the GPL-incompatible libraries you want to use meet the criteria for a system library, then you don't have to do anything special to use them; the requirement to distribute source code for the whole program does not include those libraries, even if you distribute a linked executable containing them.
The criteria for what counts as a "system library" vary between different versions of the GPL. GPLv3 explicitly defines "System Libraries" in section 1, to exclude it from the definition of "Corresponding Source." GPLv2 says the following, near the end of section 3:
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
If I don't distribute the OS or use third-party libraries that are non-GPL
and
I don't distribute P96
I think GPL might accomplish exactly what I wanted, preventing closed source derivatives of the work.
LGPL leaves the loophole of putting all the working parts into a separate, closed library.
-
Here is a link to one of Elbox's public replies: http://anna.amigazeux.org/comments2....&start=101&103
And here is a reply from Tobias Abt of P96 (interestingly complete with a shout-out to Thomas): https://web.archive.org/web/20040704...ic96-press.txt
both of these are to an extent worth each other. of course elbox a bit more. since they have started this, didnt they? their customers (me among others) did not pay a dime for p96 system, nor have i seen a hint to do so in delivered mediator docs. i had to simply rename a binary, for what i recall, which devil take me, if its not whats been called a hack?
either of them call others on consequences with the software to be delivered. has there been any? not to my rememberance. but then p96 has been a ready package, with no promises made.
so.. whats the lesson we learn of it? do whatever you like with the obsloete code and binaries, gain some flack and continue with it bothered bit by woken up hounds.
-
A 16 year standstill of empty threats and no "official" development whatsoever. Something that has changed is that paying for shareware got a heck lot easier and we users for most part has gotten wealthier.
-
I will rewrite some of it and contact Toni to see if there is a problem.
great to see you are in good contact with both main m68k maintainers out there. however i recall there is quite a cautiousness about a headers or code that may be questionable on part of aros team, should it be contributed. it needs to be well proven and documented;)
-
LGPL leaves the loophole of putting all the working parts into a separate, closed library.
thats what i meant ;) thx.
-
great to see you are in good contact with both main m68k maintainers out there. however i recall there is quite a cautiousness about a headers or code that may be questionable on part of aros team, should it be contributed. it needs to be well proven and documented;)
Only because they are easy to get along with.
They're more than welcome to anything I have that they want and think is safe to use. I'll even relicense the parts they want if I have the authority to do so.
Hopefully I can get past the license issue, get my Mediator box up and running yet again and get some code up there.
Every time I open the case the thing breaks.
-
Only because they are easy to get along with.
They're more than welcome to anything I have that they want and think is safe to use. I'll even relicense the parts they want if I have the authority to do so.
Hopefully I can get past the license issue, get my Mediator box up and running yet again and get some code up there.
Every time I open the case the thing breaks.
strange. my mediator and all my hardware seems very solid then. i have done so many swapping, testing stuff, hot at times, that it should be all scrap already..
-
What was "legal" status of P96 drivers in Amithlon/AmigaOSXL?
-
What was "legal" status of P96 drivers in Amithlon/AmigaOSXL?
Lol, who knows.
If someone told me they stole the CDs I wouldn't be surprised.
-
Thomas,
If you (or anyone else) have valid contact info for someone who would have authority, please feel free to send my email address to them, or send their address to me.
I'm willing to work with them, but they've simply dropped off the face of the Earth.
I hope that I've made it clear that I'm a reasonable person and won't simply scream at them and spam them, I'm just trying to help the community as a whole.
I'll PM you my contact information just in case.
Thanks
-
Problem is: This doesn't change a thing concerning the requirement to license the P96 API. You're confusing the copyright on the code with the legal constraint to license the API for new drivers.
Bull%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!. You can't protect an API. What kind of intellectual property right should that be? Copyright, patent, utility model, trademark? None apply. Don't start your stuff about morals again.
Writing picasso drivers without license and DDK is perfectly legal and another thousand comments of yours stating the opposite won't change the facts.
-
Bull%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!. You can't protect an API. What kind of intellectual property right should that be? Copyright, patent, utility model, trademark? None apply. Don't start your stuff about morals again.
Writing picasso drivers without license and DDK is perfectly legal and another thousand comments of yours stating the opposite won't change the facts.
In some jurisdictions, the organization of a set of information may actually be copyright protected. It depends on the complexity of organization and how much of a work the organization really constitutes. My understanding is that this is the basis of the much-spoken-of Oracle vs. Google case, where Google has used publicly available API information to implement their own compatible API.
Of course, the Java API is a much more intricate organization and structuring than the P96 API is. In the end, all these things are "grey areas" which is why it's taken so long for Oracle vs. Google to be resolved.
There is also the possible issue of a breach of contract, which is why "clean room" engineering is a popular way of going about the reimplementation of an API or protocol. Though, corporations with many lawyers will probably put a clause even in end-user licenses prohibiting the use of the software for reverse engineering. This may be an issue where EULAs are applicable.
Even then, if it is concluded that there is an infringement, such infringement may be covered by "fair use" -- copyright infringement and breach of contract is OK given some circumstances, often for security research and for the sake of producing interoperable non-competing software.
-
We are well outside US jurisdiction here.
-
We are well outside US jurisdiction here.
Yeah about that... I'm deep in the heart of Texas where patent trolls drag their victims for the easy kill.
I did manage to contact someone who can help clarify the issue.
Fingers crossed that I get a reply so this issue can be put to rest.
-
Linde, cloning an entire API is a case of anti competitive behaviour. There is no competition here and no API has been cloned. A driver was written making use of an undocumented API, that's all. Clearly unrelated.
-
I think GPL might accomplish exactly what I wanted, preventing closed source derivatives of the work.
LGPL leaves the loophole of putting all the working parts into a separate, closed library.
Using GPL forces all programs using the library to also be GPL that is the reason why a GPL library can't be included in AROS but a LGPL one can.
-
Using GPL forces all programs using the library to also be GPL that is the reason why a GPL library can't be included in AROS but a LGPL one can.
I think this is an odd case because of the clause I stated earlier that allows you to link to system libraries that are not GPL.
Example 1:
GPL app on windows. It has to link to the typical Win32 dll's to do anything useful. That's allowed because of this clause.
Example 2:
GPL app on NetBSD.
It has to link to the BSD licensed NetBSD code.
It also has to link to the XFree86 or MIT licensed X server to display the UI.
Example 3:
GPL kernel video driver on Linux.
It is loaded by the XFree86 or MIT licensed X server.
These are very relevant to the split between AOS, P96 and my driver.
What I wanted to prevent was any user linking to a closed library to hide the inner workings of the driver.
Doing that would essentially make the driver closed source and future users could not fix it, understand the hardware or learn from how it was written.
Edit: The other benefit of GPL is that you can take huge chunks of code from existing, well tested Linux drivers without license issues.
-
@Heiroglyph
The "system libraries" provision in GPL is not symmetrical. You can have a GPL application use non-GPL-compatible system library, but you cannot have a GPL plugin into a non-GPL-compatible system library (driver is essentially a plugin).
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLPluginsInNF
The linked text says that you add an exception to GPL license to allow using your GPL plugin with non-GPL-compatible program. This is allowed of course as long as you are the author of the code. This will not work if you take GPL code from Linux, because you are not the author and you cannot alter the original GPL license of Linux codes.
Cases 1) and 2) work because of system library provision. Case 3) works because Linux kernel uses a modified version of GPL where it states that doing a system call to kernel is not considered derived work:
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
If you decide to you GPL for the driver, you will be in essence violating your own license. GPL was designed to spread GPL and it was done so by people who know what they were doing. I doubt you will find holes in it. As I'm not really into forcing people into certain mind set, I prefer licenses that guarantee that extensions to my code base need to be made available, but usage of my code base does not. At the end of the day, it does not pay for a developer to maintain a fork of my codes and continuously integrate his changes with my latest version, so it makes total sense for him to contribute his changes to my code base.
-
@Heiroglyph
The "system libraries" provision in GPL is not symmetrical. You can have a GPL application use non-GPL-compatible system library, but you cannot have a GPL plugin into a non-GPL-compatible system library (driver is essentially a plugin).
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLPluginsInNF
The linked text says that you add an exception to GPL license to allow using your GPL plugin with non-GPL-compatible program. This is allowed of course as long as you are the author of the code. This will not work if you take GPL code from Linux, because you are not the author and you cannot alter the original GPL license of Linux codes.
Cases 1) and 2) work because of system library provision. Case 3) works because Linux kernel uses a modified version of GPL where it states that doing a system call to kernel is not considered derived work:
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
If you decide to you GPL for the driver, you will be in essence violating your own license. GPL was designed to spread GPL and it was done so by people who know what they were doing. I doubt you will find holes in it. As I'm not really into forcing people into certain mind set, I prefer licenses that guarantee that extensions to my code base need to be made available, but usage of my code base does not. At the end of the day, it does not pay for a developer to maintain a fork of my codes and continuously integrate his changes with my latest version, so it makes total sense for him to contribute his changes to my code base.
The more I learn, the less I know and care about licensing. As litigious as this "community" is, you unfortunately have to.
All I want is for the community to have some semblance of control over their own hardware once what little money is left dries up without a certain company yet again taking the work of another and charging for it without paying them.
Everyone just keeps paying them because there are no other options. This might help someone compete and help the community.
What do you suggest I license this as if I can get permission or rewrite it?
-
@Heiroglyph
Perhaps the FSF might be able to help with information on the legal aspect of things?
https://www.fsf.org/about/contact
-
What do you suggest I license this as if I can get permission or rewrite it?
Probably check with the author first what he things. I personally would probably also stay away from GPL as it is a can of worms. That's a particular one.
My suggestions: BSD is a particularly easy license. It does not have a copyleft, it basically grants access to the code under conditions "do whatever you want to do".
But probably that's not what you like, or the authors. It allows "forking as you like, usage as you like", including commercial usage, and no copyleft attached.
So another option would be to look into the family of "Creative Commons" licenses because they really have a larger "mix and match" repository where you can pick your conditions.
For example, you could use "CC ND NC", meaning its open, it cannot be forked, and commercial usage is prohibited.
Another variant is "CC BY", i.e. "do what you want, but quote the author".
So there are a couple of options you can look into.
As far as P96 is concerned, my *personal* best fit is "CC ND NC" or "CC ND NC BY". Probably even without the NC part I personally do not care much about. "ND" is something I personally consider useful if you want to ensure one single consistent repository - and that's pretty useful for end users so they don't have to pick "which version works for me", as there is only one.
-
@Heiroglyph
I suggest you join Apollo-Team IRC channel so you can discuss it directly, in realtime with knowledgable people.
IRC Server irc.freenode.org
Port 6667
Channel #apollo-team
This back and forth doesnt seem very constructive.
-
Things get more interesting regarding Picasso96 as days goes by:
http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=82753&page=2
Post #25 is an eye opener
-
Things get more interesting regarding Picasso96 as days goes by:
http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=82753&page=2
Post #25 is an eye opener
No, please read on. He's talking about PicassoII, not Picasso 96. Continue to post #34.
-
The "system libraries" provision in GPL is not symmetrical. You can have a GPL application use non-GPL-compatible system library, but you cannot have a GPL plugin into a non-GPL-compatible system library (driver is essentially a plugin).
That is not completely true. You may not distribute GPL-compatible binaries as part of non GPL-distribution of software (as a plugin or linked otherwise). For example, you may not include the driver in a closed source OS distribution. You can however share just the driver, and whatever users do with it that doesn't involve redistributing it (or distributing derivative works) is perfectly fine. That is, there is nothing in the license that stops me from downloading GPL software and doing whatever I want with it on my system, as long as I am not redistributing it in a way that isn't compliant with the license.
This is how you can for example legally download GPL software, modify it to your heart's content and never share any of it. It's only when I distribute the software that the license may become an issue.
-
Things get more interesting regarding Picasso96 as days goes by:
http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=82753&page=2
Post #25 is an eye opener
and oosts 34 and 38 close them again.
-
It seems you still dont get it:
He is offering Cybergraphics. With Cybergraphics in hand we can ditch Picasso96 into oblivion along with all its associated drama and greedy vultures.
-
It seems you still dont get it:
He is offering Cybergraphics. With Cybergraphics in hand we can ditch Picasso96 into oblivion along with all its associated drama and greedy vultures.
It's definitely a step in the best direction, assuming it's legitimate, because Aros has a very similar API.
The downside is trying to run CGX on most PCI boards because the closed source drivers are all for P96.
You can't use those on CGX, right? I've only used CGX once or twice over the years, so I'm not that familiar.
In addition, Elbox drivers do more than just graphics so that they can set up their DMA bounce buffers and who knows how that black box works.
-
I think the idea that somebody may have disassembled his older Picasso-to-become-CGFX for creating the picasso we know is interesting, too. It was already indicated that the latter is not free from other people's "contributions"...
-
It's definitely a step in the best direction, assuming it's legitimate, because Aros has a very similar API.
i think in fact both p96 and aros cybergraphics were designed to be api compatible with cgx.
The downside is trying to run CGX on most PCI boards because the closed source drivers are all for P96.
You can't use those on CGX, right? I've only used CGX once or twice over the years, so I'm not that familiar.
aros also provides p96 wraper for its cybergraphics, which is open code, so in theory it might be ported in order to user p96 driver files furrther.
however we are still not talking of freeing the current cgx sources here, these are property and part of morpos theam and their work and i hardly believe they are going to give up on this just like that.
-
I think the idea that somebody may have disassembled his older Picasso-to-become-CGFX for creating the picasso we know is interesting, too. It was already indicated that the latter is not free from other people's "contributions"...
i think its a quick assumption, hard to prove either way anymore. it might have been clean room as well. dont just take sides because it suits your views.
-
I didn't say anything was proven, was I? But the idea is interesting and should be checked before any rights are transferred or tried to be enforced.
-
I didn't say anything was proven, was I? But the idea is interesting and should be checked before any rights are transferred or tried to be enforced.
Why open a can?
Partly when looking at the "community" it is starting to be funny... who cares?
-
OlafS3: it's interesting because it is another coffin nail for the attempt to monopolise an important part of the RTG market. I wouldn't spend any money for some dubious rights in some software that was hacked together from various sources.
-
I wouldn't spend any money for some dubious rights in some software that was hacked together from various sources.
Actually, you don't need to spend money on it in first place. But you calling it dubious is for a somewhat obvious purpose, right? Well, anyhow, I checked the source, and yes, indeed, there is some third party code in it, apparently a collection of various contributions around P96. I find a couple of plugins for AdPro and Photogenics that are not authored by Tobias and Alex, and that should certainly be removed in the final distribution. I also find a couple of internal rtg test functions that seem to have been contributed from third parties and carry an outside copyright. They have not been part of the distribution, anyhow. I also see a Shapeshifter plugin that, as it seems, is not by Tobias and Alex, and I agree that such components should be either removed, or the corresponding authors should be contacted and negotiated with. I also see a re-implementation of the cgfx-api, that is a re-implementation of the open API of CGfx as it is documented and as it was available. Actually, as a separate library. So if that infringes third party rights, P96 would also work without it. That is certainly something that can be checked. I see no indication in the actual core for such "dubious" sources. Of course, that's not a proof that no third party rights are involved, but it seems to be rather non-obvious to proof or disprove such claims; calling it dubious is rather premature. That of course goes for every non-trivial software. In either case, I wonder how you can backup your position.
-
I'm removing the repository later today.
I've been convinced that attempting to work with any of the current license holders is more trouble than it is worth. The only sane option is to replace the problematic apis with new ones that the community controls.
If anyone is interested in helping, see my other thread or contact me directly.
-
things like that shouldnt be rushed but approached in a systemathical way. otherwise they will end up as straw fire anyway.
-
Amazing to come back from a few days with Real Life to find all this "fresh" drama :)
-
Excuse me for being a bit vague, but I'm trying to avoid the use of a name similar to "P9x" even in passing so that there is zero chance I get slapped with a trademark or copyright dispute.
All current code is based on WinUAE and E-UAE, the rest is from my interpretation of what those were doing. I've never seen an official DDK.
I've worked on an open source RTG driver on and off for a while and lately I'm seeing more people doing the same, which is awesome for the community.
I've just started a git repository for an open DDK for Amiga compatible drivers at https://github.com/jeperk/OpenVideoDDK
It's very early, I've just started getting old info together into the repository and I'm planning to revive my unfinished example OpenPCI Voodoo3 driver as time permits.
Most of it is based on WinUAE, but with hopefully correct translations of the PSSO_ offsets used in WinUAE to actual C structures.
I've also taken the comments in WinUAE and based on the code, written what I think are correct SAS/C style stubs for most functions.
It is not complete by any means, but having the information available can't hurt.
If anyone wants to contribute info or code, feel free to contact me.
Edit: I renamed the project to correct a typo (capital I in Video, thanks polluks), so the URL has changed.
Edit 2: Now under LGPL due to problematic nature of GPL and linking in Amiga-like systems.
http://www.a1k.org/forum/showthread.php?t=48710
It is prepared for other chip-drivers.
My problem is getting hands on a Voodoo ...
http://www.a1k.org/forum/showpost.php?p=808109&postcount=173
http://www.a1k.org/forum/showthread.php?p=941638
br
André
-
@ratte
the problem is this relies on pci bus, while on amiga this is only one option how a rtg card is fitted into a system. except of zorro cads (like these gba cards, the matze one or the oane of lukas/mntmn) there is for instance the apollo framebuffer, which also doenst talk over pci.
we need well structured overall solution/concept that can be easily filled in also by independent contributors.
-
http://www.a1k.org/forum/showthread.php?t=48710
It is prepared for other chip-drivers.
My problem is getting hands on a Voodoo ...
http://www.a1k.org/forum/showpost.php?p=808109&postcount=173
http://www.a1k.org/forum/showthread.php?p=941638
br
André
I'm interested in what you're doing, but the Google translation isn't very good.
It looks like you're doing something similar to what I was doing for my OpenPCI example driver.
Care to give me a brief overview in English?
I've only got a single Voodoo3 now, I sold my other one a few years ago.
-
What was "legal" status of P96 drivers in Amithlon/AmigaOSXL?
Lol, who knows.
If someone told me they stole the CDs I wouldn't be surprised.
Just a quick note --- P96 for Amithlon was fully licensed directly from Tobias and Alexander; It's been too many years for me to remember the exact amount (and IIRC, that amount was still in Deutschmark), but my vague recollection is that it was something like 5 Euro per copy. And while I wasn't personally in charge of making sure they got paid, my impression is that they (unlike Amiga Inc) *did* get paid --- I was in contact with them afterwards, and they never mentioned any issues in that regard.
Can't speak for AmigaXL, of course...
-
@Heiroglyph
Are you following CBM RTG specifications as seen in the Amiga Developers Conference of Orlando from 1993? And others info like FutureProductOptions_dist.pdf
Kamelito
-
I've cancelled this project now, too many legal questions.
I've move to another project which uses the Aros RTG which is similar to CGX. So no, I'm not unless they did.
-
i think we may have to wait a little. there was a hefty discussion on a1k, which result may be that the community will be offered to open source p96 for a certain price, even if i consider this unlikely anymore. if p96 will be handed over to another party or company it might really occur necessary. especially for the rtg solution vendors to reach for some oprn solution themselves, which most conveniently could be based on aros as it seems.
-
i think we may have to wait a little. there was a hefty discussion on a1k, which result may be that the community will be offered to open source p96 for a certain price, even if i consider this unlikely anymore. if p96 will be handed over to another party or company it might really occur necessary. especially for the rtg solution vendors to reach for some oprn solution themselves, which most conveniently could be based on aros as it seems.
As long as we get something figured out, I'm fine with it.
Hopefully it's open source so that when the money runs out we aren't stuck again.
-
I've cancelled this project now, too many legal questions.
I've move to another project which uses the Aros RTG which is similar to CGX. So no, I'm not unless they did.
Well done to all involved in this decision.
-
there was a hefty discussion on a1k, which result may be that the community will be offered to open source p96 for a certain price
As you, I wouldn't put my hopes on it and certainly not stop a project because of it. Right now there is some momentum which should be used before it's lost.
-
As you, I wouldn't put my hopes on it and certainly not stop a project because of it. Right now there is some momentum which should be used before it's lost.
Has anyone considered a white room implementation ?
N
-
Has anyone considered a white room implementation ?
N
clean room? aros is such. what concerns p96 mntmn is putting now his own p96 compatible headers on a public repo.
-
As you, I wouldn't put my hopes on it and certainly not stop a project because of it. Right now there is some momentum which should be used before it's lost.
what concerns momentum. one simply needs to start work on it. i have notified lukas about these threads, but i think he probably prefers to work, rather than to post around in amiga forums.
-
Using GPL forces all programs using the library to also be GPL that is the reason why a GPL library can't be included in AROS but a LGPL one can.
This can be tricky to understand. Are you using a GPL library here, and thus taking on the GPL, or is the GPL library using something else from the OS or other binary-only proprietary distribution? You can't write a GPL thing that makes MS Windows become a GPL OS just because some GPL thing used an OS function call...
Look at ReactOS, it's a GPL reimplementation of old MS Windows API and intends to be binary compatible with drivers and apps etc. written/compiled for MS Windows. I don't believe that a user trying to run some proprietary app on ReactOS makes that app become GPL. You can also have proprietary software on Linux.
So, where are the GPL lines here, and which direction are the calls going in, how do all pieces fit togehter, and when and under what conditions did which binary get compiled? Are there legacy proprietary things making use of other legacy proprietary things, and you are trying to fit in an open-source layer in between them, or replacing them? Legacy proprietary things can remain proprietary, as they were not written for or linked with a GPL thing, they were designed to a proprietary companion. Pulling that proprietary companion piece away and replacing it without knowledge of the original proprietary author or toolset does not force GPL onto the other proprietary thing that isn't aware its now making use of a GPL companion thing. While some see GPL as a cancer, it doesn't grow quite that way...
You can also look at using LGPL middleman tricks, such as how some proprietary drivers work with Linux kernel. That gets further into grey area, but the above is less grey than that.
-
Look at ReactOS, it's a GPL reimplementation of old MS Windows API and intends to be binary compatible with drivers and apps etc. written/compiled for MS Windows. I don't believe that a user trying to run some proprietary app on ReactOS makes that app become GPL. You can also have proprietary software on Linux.
If you would include OpenPCI GPL in AROS and non-GPL programs using the openpci.library it becomes very hard to argue these programs should not be GPL.