GPL RTG driver information available

[wawrzon]

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.

[wawrzon]

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.

[wawrzon]

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.

[wawrzon]

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.

[wawrzon]

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.

[wawrzon]

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.

[wawrzon]

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.

[wawrzon]

... 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.

[wawrzon]

Please guys, refrain from personal insults

hope there is no insults on my part, wasnt intended, i hold all the parties in highest respect!

[wawrzon]

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.

[wawrzon]

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;)

[wawrzon]

LGPL leaves the loophole of putting all the working parts into a separate, closed library.

thats what i meant thx.

[wawrzon]

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..

[wawrzon]

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.

[wawrzon]

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.