License discussion

Hi,

I would like to propose a few things.

1) all projects made in this new organization must follow the same licence. This is to make things easier for everyone.

2) as we can't waste our time, let's choose one that already exists as a base. This licence should allow OS4 to use it so Mozilla Public Licence.

3) Maybe we can add one more rule to MPL:

Only AmigaOS PPC can use the software developed by the organisation. The goal being that I don't want M$ to steal any work done here (as they did in the past).

Anybody against these points?

@Elwood

I'm just adding to the discussion below, don't take my word as law.

1. Yes it would certainly make things easier if the same license was used, in terms of moving around code and such. There might be a need for some flexibility, perhaps the general guideline should be to use a specific license but allow other forms of licensing for individual projects if there's a good reason for it.

2. I'm no expert in LGPL so I don't know what it allows and on what level. I know that you can release binary libraries with it, but what about stuff that gets integrated closely with the OS? For example, if we make a patch that adds some functionality to an existing library, can Hyperion then use that code to build a complete non patched library that contains non LGPL code? And can Hyperion modify the sources if they need to to fit their framework?

In essence we'd need to define what we'd want Hyperion and others to use the code for and how and then see if that fits any existing license, such as LGPL.

3. We might want some flexibility there too, what happens if Hyperion one day makes OS5? What if some other company buys Hyperion? Do we want to relicense everything if that happens or do we want it flexible enough so that the organization can grant usage to parties of their choice?

@Elwood

Quote:
No.

Quote:
Yes.

@orgin

Quote:No. The LGPL is nearly as evil as the GPL, the only difference it that it doesn't affect software just using a LGPL library, "only" all parts of the library itself have to be LGPL. With the GPL even software using a GPL library has to be GPL.

The only usable licences are BSD ones (changes don't have to be released) and MPL ones (changes in the source files initially released under the MPL have to be released under the same licence, but no other sources of software using them). For example AROS uses a licence similar to the MPL which made it possible to use AROS code for large parts of MorphOS (dos.library, C: commands, intuition.library, gadtools.library, asl.library, commodities.library, diskfont.library, icon.library, locale.library, iffparse.library, ...).

@orgin

Quote:
Huh? We're not discussing how to do individual projects but how to do projects to push the OS forward. So all projects should be made for the OS and by the organisation.
Individual projects should be made elsewhere i.e. by an individual, not the organisation.

I removed "4.x" from the OS that can use the software and I added "PPC". We want to work for the future (PPC) or for the past (68k) ?

@Elwood

I post often on the Natami website and think that a new 68070 processor would be a better target for future development than PowerPC or Intel. The instruction set is tighter in terms of memory consumption while being easy to use due to its orthogonality. Let's not rule out the hardware-based solutions to the Amiga developments yet.

I vote against PPC only.

Mozilla Public License is ok for now but I'm already working on a language compiler that's LGPL 3.0 and I don't know if we should change the Mattathias project's licnese again.

@Samurai_Crow

Remember that this organizations' purpose is to support and extend OS4.

@All

Whether the Open Amiga license should limit what CPU should be used could be debated of course, though I personally would not favor any such construction.

@Elwood

Each project would be individual in the sense that each project can release its own binaries. For example; if someone wrote a better search function for os4 under the Open Amiga project then then search function can be release to the public, plus Hyperion would have the option of including it in , and modify if needed for, OS4 without first negotiating with the developer(s).

There might be some projects that might need their own license, for whatever reason. Open Amiga would not favor such a solution but banning it totally may not be a good idea. The SDK for example consists of many foreign utilities and tools that require/uses their own licenses. Any such project would have to be flagged as non compatible to the Open Amiga license and it has be made very clear that source cannot be reused in other Open Amiga licensed projects.

@joerg

I read through MPL and APL. Bit too rich for me to get a full gripe of what it all means. Some stuff, like the US government stuff, seems to not fit in there. I hope someone joins in that can read though them and give us some insight and tell us if it can be used to fulfill the Open Amiga ideas.

@orgin

Quote:The details are only interesting for, and comprehensible by, lawyers. The basic ideas are

BSD: No restrictions. Can be used for Open Amiga, but doesn't enforce open source.

MPL/APL: What was released as open source has to stay open source incl. all changes made to it, but it's limited to the individual source files and doesn't add restrictions to other software incl. other source files linked into the same executable or library. Ideal for something like Open Amiga if you want to enforce open source. Except for for coding examples/templates, to make it possible to use them as base for own software without having to release the sources they should use a BSD licence instead.

LGPL: All sources of an executable or a library, even if it's just using a single LGPL function, have to be open source. Doesn't add restrictions to software just using a LGPL library (but only if it's dynamically linked, i.e. an AmigaOS .library or a shared object, everything statically linked with LGPL code has to be LGPL). Usage for Open Amiga is very limited, it could only be used for tools and libraries which are a complete replacement or something new, not for improvements of existing parts since none of the sources can be used in software with another licence.

GPL: Extremely virulent crap which isn't usable for anything, especially not libraries since any software just using the library has to be GPL as well. The Linux kernel has an exception invalidating the most important GPL points, without that all software running on Linux would have to be GPL. May even affect generated data, IIRC GCC has an explicit statement that the code it generates isn't covered by the GPL. If you think it's usable for anything you either don't understand it, or you are as mad as Richard M. Stallman and should consult a psychiatrist immediately
One example for the GPL nonsense on AmigaOS is YAM, it's GPL but violates it by using the non-GPL MUI libraries and classes (at least on AmigaOS 3.x where MUI isn't part of the OS, AFAIK there is an exception for OS parts). GPL software isn't allowed to use libraries with another licence.

Of course there are much more licences, but for the most important parts everything else is just a variant of one of the 4 above ones.

@joerg

Actually, as of version 3.0 you can statically link LGPL libraries as well. You just can't patent them.

@Orgin

I wouldn't mind a port of OS4 to the Natami if it became legally possible to do so. Of course the portions of the Kernal that are written in PPC Assembly wouldn't work on a Natami but the rest should work.

@Samurai_Crow

Quote:

Not ever going to happen. There is much more to an operating system that is CPU dependent than assembler parts. If there is going to be a different CPU supported in AmigaOS 4.x, it is very certainly not going to be 68k.

The effort required to port AmigaOS 4.x to 68k is far too big to justify it. If there was another desktop CPU supported, it would surely by x86-based.

@All

I've posted some info here:

http://openamiga.orgin.biz/index.php?function=viewpage&pageid=12

@orgin

http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.txt

The MPL license.