Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Main Menu
Who's Online
1 user(s) are online (1 user(s) are browsing Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 1

more...

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 (2) 3 4 »


Re: Reverse-engineering & AROS license

Joined:
2004/10/30 17:13
From Ireland
Group:
Member
Posts: 2643
Offline
Quote:

wawa wrote:
Quote:

ncafferkey wrote:
Regardless of whether we'd get away with any of the techniques suggested above, we don't use them. And the AROS licence isn't viral in the sense that the GPL is: it only requires that a source file taken from AROS and modified is re-released under the AROS licence. It doesn't affect other source files that are linked with it.


so in conclusion it seems that aros actually could be relicensed if need be?


I don't know how you reach that conclusion from what I wrote. APL code remains under the APL unless all contributing authors agree to relicence it. This possiblity has been discussed on the dev list, but the general feeling was that it was completely impractical IIRC.

However, AFAIK you could have a single module that is partly APL and partly another licence (but only certain licences, not GPL for example).

Posted on: 5/16 17:33
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Reverse-engineering & AROS license

Joined:
2013/4/21 1:35
From Germany
Group:
Member
Posts: 275
Offline
Exactly. The issue is caused, as usual, by the GPL, because it's so damn viral. But other combinations work fine, because APL-covered material is preserved with the original license, even if you decide to re-distribute the Large Work (which includes APL code) in a different license.

Quote:

ncafferkey wrote:
Quote:

cdimauro wrote:

There's, however, a (big for me) weak point when it talks about the patents and the rights (to use AROS sources) termination. I personally find it unfair that this way it wants to force patents owners to lose control about the fruit of their work, if they want to use AROS sources (nothing is stated about the binaries, fortunately).
This is something which will not affect 99,99% of the people, which usually aren't involved in patents et all, so it has quite low importance, but... it MIGHT. And it should be better published IMO (so that people is aware).


I'm not sure if that's how the licence works: I suspect instead that its purpose is to stop someone distributing their code under the APL, and then entrapping people by making a patent claim against those who use it.

Basically and to synthesize, if a patent owner sues the AROS "Participant" (the Initial Developer or Contributor responsible for the specific part of code in discussion) due to an infringement found in part of its AROS code contribution, the patent owner loses any right to use the AROS code (ALL code, coming from all contributors).

It's for protecting AROS contributors, of course. At first sight it might make sense but, as I said, I personally find it unfair. That's because it basically gives AROS contributors the full freedom to implement whatever they want at the expenses of patent owners' work.

IMO a better compromise, respectful of all parties' work, would have been the following:
- if a patent owner finds a breach inside AROS code which is pertinent to its IP, it contacts the AROS Participant (if possible. Or any other maintainer), asking to rewrite or remove that specific part of the code.
If an agreement isn't found in 60 days, the patent owner can file a lawsuit against the Participant, but he continues to retain the right to use the AROS sources, since the missed agreement it's not its fault (he gave enough time to fix the breach);
- if a patent owner sues immediately the AROS Participant, without any agreement tentative (see above), then it applies the current Termination section of APL.
Quote:
However, I'm not much concerned about it, as I'm opposed to the concept of software patents anyway, and I know I'm not alone in the AROS community in holding this view. How about you?

If the society permits to file patents (in general: not only software), I might take the opportunity, and I'm in favor of protecting this kind of IPs.
If patents aren't allowed I'm free to do whatever I want, so it's better.
Currently we are in a society that allows patents...

BTW, in my previous work at Intel, I tried to file an hardware + software patent regarding a novel memory protection technology. It was refused by the company (IMO because it has just introduced its own MPX), but I'm still thinking about what to do.

Now I work for a (100%) BMW subsidiary and I might have some ideas about some hardware + software patents (car-related, of course ). So, if it's the case, I'll file some patent.

In general, I'm a person which can have novel ideas about any argument (even reading a physics book some came to my mind), and I want to pursue them, if I've the possibility.

It should be clear that, regarding the topic, I have absolutely NOTHING against AROS, which I appreciate.

But I'm particularly and proudly against viral licenses that might attempt to my personal work.
APL, as clarified, is not the case, and I think it should be the model to follow (the only concern is about patents), because it's the right compromise between opening sources in a controlled/contributive manner while giving the possibility to protect external, proprietary code.
But GPL et similar... for me are THE absolute evil.

Posted on: 5/16 21:50
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Reverse-engineering & AROS license

Joined:
2013/4/21 1:35
From Germany
Group:
Member
Posts: 275
Offline
Quote:

wawa wrote:
comeback of 68k as a mainstrieam platform is certainly utopic. but the same applies to whatever brand of amiga-ng or the like, aros, even x64 and smp enabled, inclusive.

x64 (and ARM) has WAY much better opportunities and audience, and I think you are aware of this.

With a nice sandbox (but I'm thinking about a completely different approach: a pervasive use & integration with the host is much better, IMO) and an improved 68K -> x64/ARM JIT, the final user experience would be better.

Remember one thing: people likes to use 68K SOFTWARE. And most of that is in binary form. So, there's no chance to have new versions here.

But there's a HUGE chance to "morph"/"translate"/"integrate" that software in a way that it works better (gives a better user experience) in an hosted ambient (which is your normal environment).
Quote:
with the curent ferment arosund 68k, peole get motivated again to use it, work with and code for it. like it or not.

It's not what I like or not: don't put this as personal question.

Be realistic, instead: do you think that new, 68K-specific, software will be developed?

How far can you go with a novel 68K hardware platform? Even using ASICs, there'll be no comparison with an x64 one (high-end at the top: immense computing power) or ARM (very low-end as its best point: it's sooooooo cheap! Look at the Raspberry Pi, for example).

Only people like matthey continue to believe in a 68K revival, but it's more or a less a question of pure faith here... With all the respect of such guys, which I personally find very smart and competent.
Quote:
this could be mutual opportunity for both aros and 68k to bundle some efforts, which was denied for a long time. at last thats how i see it.

That's granted. I don't believe in any Amiga o.s. 3.1 open sourcing: AROS is THE replacement, and it already provides all that it's needed, and even more, with a great potential to improve.

Anyway, we are a bit OT. If you want to continue (if this is case, because I don't think there's much to say about it, since we have completely, irreconcilable, visions), we can move to another (the 68K?) thread.

Posted on: 5/16 22:06
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Reverse-engineering & AROS license

Joined:
2010/8/30 7:20
Group:
Member
Posts: 947
Offline
Quote:

ncafferkey wrote:
I don't know how you reach that conclusion from what I wrote.


considering aros license is permissive and doenst impose ssuch restrioctions as gpl at least perts of code might be used in projects published under different licensing. if that is the case i dont think there is the limit as to how much of aros (the part under apl) could be forked that way.

maybe im thinking wrong. and certainly i have no purpose on my mind. i was just wondering.

Posted on: 5/16 23:41
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Reverse-engineering & AROS license

Joined:
2010/8/30 7:20
Group:
Member
Posts: 947
Offline
Quote:

cdimauro wrote:
x64 (and ARM) has WAY much better opportunities and audience, and I think you are aware of this.


im not against any of these platforms. on the contrary, i see them as opportunity as much as 68k, for those who are interested in them. contributing to aros you usually contribute to all targets, thats the beauty.

said that, aros is already supporting both these targets, so what do you want?

Quote:

Remember one thing: people likes to use 68K SOFTWARE. And most of that is in binary form. So, there's no chance to have new versions here.

hard to tell what people like. its no use to come with arbitrary opinions whats most convenient and escept them to align with it. go, evangelize aros and your vision of it on aorg or eab, you will see.

Quote:

Be realistic, instead: do you think that new, 68K-specific, software will be developed?

thats what happens just now. look at aminet. look at aros archives. aros software is still a tiny fraction in comparison to what is available and what is still being coded or ported to amiga. it is an opportuninty for both sides as i said.

Quote:

AROS is THE replacement, and it already provides all that it's needed,

no. it does not. otherwise it would be widely used. there is work left to be done. and when it gains some ground, maybe, just maybe it might become the drug that gains some audience for your vision of what aros future is supposed to be.

Posted on: 5/16 23:56
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Reverse-engineering & AROS license

Joined:
2004/4/7 4:26
Group:
Member
Posts: 4358
Offline
@Wawa, cdimauro

100% binary compatibility on real Amigas is one of AROS goals, so yes, there is both interest in the 68K version AND in making it complete. What's lacking, though, are developers, time and motivation. See the recent posts from amiga and bszili: having those issues fixed will be useful for everyone.


@cdimauro

Although I agree on the fact that x64 is a far more compelling platform, m68k is as important as well. First of all, because since the m68k effort went serious, many compatibility issues and mistakes were fixed also on the other patforms (sources which previously had problems compiling and running natively on x86, worked better afterwards), second, because the Amiga retro-scene is made up by thousands of people (much more than the 'NG scene') and making something that will appeal them will be useful to gain attention and, maybe, new motivated developers.

By the way, endorsment from the Apollo team surely is good to AROS as well. There's no point in patching again, again and one more time the old, closed-source, already hyper-patched AmigaOS 3.x from the Commodore/H&G era. We have the cleaner AROS M68K alternative and it can be modified as needed when anyone wants.


Posted on: 5/17 3:28
_________________
p.bes
Icaros Desktop AROS distribution mantainer
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Reverse-engineering & AROS license

Joined:
2016/8/16 0:09
Group:
Member
Posts: 314
Offline
@paolone:
I couldn't agree more...

But, as far as my understanding goes towards online translated texts, the whole point of user ross starting the discussion is to accomplish this task e.g. implement missing features.

So, in case i understood correctly then user ross is exploring his options.

Posted on: 5/17 3:47
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Reverse-engineering & AROS license

Joined:
2010/8/30 7:20
Group:
Member
Posts: 947
Offline
ive put up instructions on eab how to compile aros, in particular 68k, but what does that matter, x86 or x64 is almost the same? ross rellized how simple it was and came over here to check out the options. and now he is being indoctrinated about his platform choice and the state of licensing, or what? im sure seeing it as counter productive..

Posted on: 5/17 4:58
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Reverse-engineering & AROS license

Joined:
2004/4/12 13:07
Group:
Member
Posts: 531
Offline
Quote:

cdimauro wrote:

IMO a better compromise, respectful of all parties' work, would have been the following:
- if a patent owner finds a breach inside AROS code which is pertinent to its IP, it contacts the AROS Participant (if possible. Or any other maintainer), asking to rewrite or remove that specific part of the code.
If an agreement isn't found in 60 days, the patent owner can file a lawsuit against the Participant, but he continues to retain the right to use the AROS sources, since the missed agreement it's not its fault (he gave enough time to fix the breach);
- if a patent owner sues immediately the AROS Participant, without any agreement tentative (see above), then it applies the current Termination section of APL.


I would never have contributed to AROS if such a clause was in it's license.

Posted on: 5/17 11:41
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Reverse-engineering & AROS license

Joined:
2013/4/21 1:35
From Germany
Group:
Member
Posts: 275
Offline
This extremism wouldn't save you from possible lawsuits, if you have infringed an IP.

A patent costs A LOT of money, and generates more money due to licensing and/or patent-exchange.

AROS generates... how much? Is it interesting for being adopted by some company (to make profits)?

Between losing its IP and the rights to use AROS' sources, I don't think that a company can even doubt about what choice to make.

Maybe you don't know how the real world works, and the interests which are around patents and IPs.

At least the change that I've exposed before can lead to an opportunity for fixing the breach: reading the APL, the owner can decide to contact the contributor, instead of proceeding with a lawsuit.

Posted on: 5/17 12:10
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer



« 1 (2) 3 4 »



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]


Search
Top Posters
1 paolone
paolone
4358
2 magorium
magorium
4095
3 phoenixkonsole
phoenixkonsole
3892
4 nikolaos
nikolaos
3693
5 deadwood
deadwood
2923
6 ncafferkey
ncafferkey
2643
7 mazze
mazze
2214
8 clusteruk
clusteruk
2109
9 Kalamatee
Kalamatee
2024
10 damocles
damocles
1789
© 2004-2017 AROS Exec