GPL RTG driver information available

[OlafS3]

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

[OlafS3]

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

[OlafS3]

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

[OlafS3]

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?