YAM Licence

[kolla]

@walkero

developers

It’s just Broadblues, no need for plural.

Btw, the problem I see here is AmigaKit claiming copyright for YAM, that’s pure BS - they only have copyright for the specific code they added, the certainly cannot claim copyright on any of the code they did not write. The copyrights of everyone else who has contributed doesn’t magically vanish when you add your own code to it, this is not like “corporate” code where you can buy the whole thing and slap your copyrights on it - clearly AmigaKit does _not_ grasp GPL.

[kolla]

@kolla
Once again you are trying to create negativity about us and our projects. It is becoming a regular event.

I am not creating negativity, all the creation here is by yourself, I am merely pointing it out.

We are not claiming the entire copyright.  That is the precise reason we have left the other copyright notices inside the program to acknowledge the previous contributors.

The splash gives the impression that you consider yourself the only current copyright holder, as if you have been granted all rights by previous developers and contributors.

Our copyright is the most recent covering the specific changes we have made.

Then to avoid this kind of turmoil, I suggest you change the splash to reflect that.

Have you read any of the licence documentation we distribute with YAM ? My guess is No.

Of course I have, it is GPL-2, and you cannot just change that. Are you saying you distribute YAM with other license documentation than that?

[kolla]

No, I fully understand your agenda.  Your past comment to my colleague about not liking AmigaKit made that very clear.

So what is my agenda? Really, in all seriousness, I wish that AmigaKit could be a much better actor in the community instead of pissing off people all the time, in all kinds of ways.

The crux of the matter is that you do not like seeing AmigaKit investing time and resources into further development of Marcel Beck's creation. You also do not like to see the AmigaKit name added to this list of developers.

Nonsense, I have nothing against AmigaKit actually contributing to development of Amiga software, I especially welcome AmigaKit to contribute to open source Amiga software. However, the way you go about, it looks a lot more like "bringing in-house" rather than contributions.

I suppose you have nothing against anyone extracting Yam and various other open source software from their A600GS and uploading it to Aminet or whatever?

[kolla]

@walkero
We will adhere to the legal requirements of the licence.

Then you will have nothing against that someone else do the work for you, buys an A600GS and thereby gets access to Yam 2.10, then asks you for the sources, which you will have to offer according to license, and ensures that all changes also are available in the actual YAM source repo, at least in its own branch. Right?

[kolla]

Does filing bug reports and source code fixes count as maintenance?

Not really, we do this all the time to various projects both in private and as part of my work, but that makes me a contributor at best, not a maintainer - a maintainer is someone who does the overall work of managing and maintaining the project and its resources.

It has YAM prominently in the name and splash screen graphics in addition to [A600/M68K] and the version number etc.

Whoops.

this a different version [A600/M68K].

Whoops.

We gave back code to AmiBerry, AROS and YAM.

Have you added copyright claims on AmiBerry and AROS as well.

When something says "Copyright 2002-2022" doesn't mean the copyright ends in 2022, it means at least 50 years more. Marcel Beck explicitly gave away YAM to the YAM Open Source Team, but the YAM Open Source Team has not explicitly given away YAM to AmigaKit.

Futaura made a nightly/beta build in 2022 - not a new public release.

The nightly beta builds (2024, not 2022) were/are publicly released and publicly available, so what are you talking about?

We incorporated his code into our YAM A600GS public release.

This, however... public release?