RiscOS/BBC - TCP/IP

If the final seven words are missing, then the software that I already have will remain GPLv2. If the final thirteen words are missing, I can choose any GPL version I like.

No. Absolutely not. See Qt or TrueCrypt examples.

Yes. Absolutely so. Re. GPLv2 section 9, or GPLv3 section 14.

I was talking at this point from the position of the end user that has to follow a licence, not as the copyright holder.

My first message on this subject.

It is possible, but hard (see Linux change from GPLv2 to GPLv3).

Then the second one with explanation:

Of course, prior GPLv2 version will still exist, but you can change the license of your code

YOUR code. Not the code of other people. You’re only the owner of your code. Not the owner of someone else’ code. Seems normal to me.

Anyway, the point is that we can change the license. You just need the authorization of all copyright holders (you, and some possible contributors).

The old code has a licence in the source that can’t be re-written for that copy.

" it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice."

The GPL version will still be distributed. It exists. But I can at any moment choose to distribute the same code (MY code) under another license. for example, I use some snippets on both GPL and non GPL projects. I own the code.

What makes you assume that? MySQL, PostgreSQL, MS SQL all exist on MS platform.

Is MySQL a Microsoft based solution? “and sold them a Microsoft-based solution”.
Yes, I was sarcastic anyway. The important part of the sentence was “a good manager”.
Are sarcasms only french? :)

I think you’re changing position.

Yes, I was not very precise. TBH, I’m surprised to see that some people believe that GPL implies that the owner of the code is not the coder any more but the GPL. Big confusion between what is the distribution license and who is the copyright older. The copyright older changes of license when he wants. The only limit is – of course – that you can’t revoke the license for existing copies distributed as GPL. Logical. But you can also republish it under another license. When you want.

“Since in most cases, only the copyright holder can change the licensing terms of a software, multi licensing is mostly used by companies that wholly own the software which they are licensing. Confusion may arise when a person outside the company creates additional source code, using the less restrictive license. Because the company with the official code is not the copyright holder of the additional code, they may not legally include this new work in their more restrictively licensed version.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing

I was talking at this point from the position of the end user that has to follow a licence, not as the copyright holder.

Ah, one who understands :)

Oh, absolutely yes. You cannot re-write history. It was what it was. It is written.

GPL is a license, not a contract.

Example with another licence. Proprietary. You sell Windows for 90 £. then you choose to sell it for 10 £ and 3 computers. You can re-write history. Difference with GPL is that the old GPL version can be still be distributed between users, since the license gives you the right to do so, with no limit in time.

GPLv3 is more precise on this point, as some people did not understand it. “All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met.”

The only limit is – of course – that you can’t revoke the license for existing copies distributed as GPL.

You’re getting there.
Try the shorter version: “that you can’t revoke the license for existing copies”

Which was the whole of the point I’ve been attempting to convey.

We agree. That was my second comment on this subject.

Of course, prior GPLv2 version will still exist, but you can change the license of your code and say ‘it was GPLv2, it’s now also GPLv3’. So new versions will be completely GPLv3, not only the new code (even if old code is available in two versions: GPLv2 & GPLv3).

To be more precise: you have a GPLv2 version. It will ever exists. But you can republish THE SAME code under another license at any time (as copyright holder. Users can’t). Of course, this new version will not replace the old version (even if it’s the same code).

“it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.”

You can’t kill the GPL version, but the GPL version will not kill the copyright holder’s right to republish its code under other licenses. See TrueCrypt. Was not GPL, then GPL, then not GPL. Or Qt. Was non GPL, then GPL, then LGPL. No rewrite.

Are sarcasms only french? :)

No, I think there is a culture gap.
When I am sarcastic at work (given that my natural tendency is what Americans would call Deadpan Snarker), the replies that I usually get are extremely literal to the point where I sometimes question if French people actually understand what sarcasm is. I think we (Brit/French) do, but in rather different ways.

Example with another licence. Proprietary. You sell Windows for 90 £. then you choose to sell it for 10 £ and 3 computers. You can re-write history.

No. You are changing the future.
The only way you can attempt to rewrite history is if you tracked down all the people that bought Windows for £90 and gave them £80 back. And even then you can’t retrospectively do the “and 3 computers” bit, so it is more a pacification than changing history.

Real life example (to give an example that doesn’t depend upon the vagaries of licensing): We, in this day and age, are making apologies for the use of/involvement in slave trade. We may say sorry and give random people compensation payments, but none of this alters what happened to the slaves some 200+ years ago. I suppose we could attempt a revisionist history that alters how the story is told (which in this internet age must be a rather pointless concept), but the events happened and nothing is going to make it unhappen.

“All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met.”

Which means there can never be a GPLv4 except for new and re-released code. Why? Because GPLv3 declares itself as “irrevocable”, so the “or any later version” clause is meaningless. You can’t choose to revoke that which states it is irrevocable.
See what I mean when I alluded to a million monkeys turning out the text of the GPL?

That’s enough. Tired. Bedtime. Night all.

I think we (Brit/French) do, but in rather different ways.

I know. I was sarcastic (again). It’s simple: some french people are never sarcastic, some other are almost always.

No. You are changing the future.

Absolutely true. Wrong argument. BTW, to say it was GPLv2 and now it’s GPLv2 + GPLv3, and next version will be GPLv3 only it’s also changing the future. Not the past.

The GPLv2 says something like that too.

It’s from GPLv2. We both need some sleep :)

senseless ;o)

if RiscOS would be ready selling a product (not a viral licence), i might be ready porting a few of my occidental applications to BBC Pico .. but never ever to a viral licence

License is your choice. No OS will force you to use one or another. Not RISC OS, not Windows, not Linux.

I’ve realised that maybe I should be requesting of Justin license changes for more than just EasySockets.
Can anyone list in an order of priority other software by Justin that would be of particular use?
I think it best to ask about only a few key programs!

I think I’d stick to just the one request. It might be nice to ask for permission for lots of things but given the circumstances we don’t yet know if he is even going to be receptive to the idea…

If a GPL program is part of ResourceFS which is part of RISC OS does it count as an aggregate or would it imply that everything should become GPL?

What about a second ROM image (working in a similar manner to a podule ROM) with all the GPL code in it (whether as modules or within resourceFS, since I have seem podules add to it)?

Obviously the core system would have to work without it.

What about a second ROM image […]

Surely by this point, an installable program would be simpler?!?

(working in a similar manner to a podule ROM) with all the GPL code in it

IANAL, but I don’t see any conflict if the two are provided as separate entities.
It is when they are supplied together that there is the potential for a problem.

Or, if you have a choice, use something that isn’t GPL? ;-)

I asked Justin:
> Is there any way you could be persuaded to either update it yourself or let
> someone else do that?

He replied:
…. So no, I have no interesting doing that, or letting anyone else do so and
condone those actions.

From what else he said I would expect the same reply if he is asked in 10 or 20 years time:-(

So who is up for writing SimpleSockets?

Is the original binary still available in a releasable (but not working) form so that a separate patch can be written to read in the original binary and then ‘32 bit’ it in situ after working out the bits to change using ARMalyser?

From what else he said I would expect the same reply if he is asked in 10 or 20 years time:-(

Hmmm, my assessment of how upset he was/is appears to be correct. Oh, well, nothing we can do to change that.

after working out the bits to change using ARMalyser?

Looking at v1.08 that’s 51 instances of which 6 appear to be error message generation involving ORRS and the other 45 are function exits.

I mention v1.08 as the newest version I found in any archive out there.
However, asking users to download from an obscure location and the apply a hack/patch doesn’t seem like the right way to do things.

doesn’t seem like the right way to do things

Well, no of course it doesn’t!

Justin was very clear about the whole thing. I believe his words at the time were something like “I do not want a 32 bit clean version of it to exist.”

Now I know that legally, patching may be permissible in spite of this (EU law), but I personally would not feel comfortable about it, knowing that he hasn’t changed his mind.

Legally (IANAL but IIRC) we can perform the 32 bit update via a helper program that takes the original binary and modifies it. Obviously nobody can pass on the modified versions, but so long as the helper is available then people can just roll their own. [re. interoperability clause et al]

Morally, however, it is quite clear that Justin’s work is simply never going to make it to the 32 bit realm. It’s a crying shame as he made some useful utilities . . . but he was asked and he hasn’t changed his mind, nor appears to be willing to consider doing so. As such, I think we ought to give up on this and think about alternatives.

Actually, using the sockets isn’t that difficult. It is just fiddly, persnickety, and the documentation is lacklustre. Maybe better than an “EasySockets” style module, we could just do with some simple public domain (not GPL or anything) example programs using TCPIPLibs that actually work and contain comments as to what is happening and why. Then people can look at the code, understand it, and know how to do the same in their programs.

Rick are you volunteering to do the example programs?
You could bundle them up in wrapper called a module:-)
That way they could be easily called from any languages including BASIC that the example only route wouldn’t help much!