Castle licence - was linux

I’ll move this here.

How can something independent and separate and a part of any Derivative Work?

If you release a version of RISC OS with a different USB stack then RISC OS is derived but the USB stack is independent.

but don’t have to be informed at all or use any changes.

Boolean logic fail. Quote: “by including a copy of the source code with Your distribution and/or by uploading the source code to the official RISC OS source code repository at […]” – in either case, derivative work that you distribute1 is supposed to be uploaded to the repo. One could consider this an implicit notification of changes.

That says that you can only distribute code that hasn’t been put into the RISC OS source code repository if you include the sources with the distribution. There is no requirement for ROOL to include it in the repository.

And here is the one for the GPL crowd:

Its got nothing to do with GPL its just stating the obvious that you are only allowed to distribute the code under the terms of the licence.

The modifications to the RISC OS code base are covered under the Castle licence. Modifications to any version of the Linux kernel are covered under GPLv2. They cannot clash, and more importantly, one cannot supplant the other.

More importantly it is illegal to distribute code if either licence is violated.

I’ll move this here.

Probably a good idea. (^_^)

There is no requirement for ROOL to include it in the repository.

That’s true, and the licence pretty much states that. The point I was making was that it was claimed that they “don’t have to be informed at all”, so I was saying that the requirement (and/or means “always submitted” to the repo) is an implicit notification of your changes. If they ignore it, then that’s their prerogative, but they will have been notified…

More importantly it is illegal to distribute code if either licence is violated.

Illegal? Don’t you mean unlawful?

It’s the same question that rears its head with piracy discussions: Murder and rape are illegal. Ripping off movies, GPL infrigements (etc) is unlawful. Any sane society (in other words, probably not the US) should never confuse the two or have a person be punished more for torrenting Michael Bay’s latest CGIfest than if they went out and, like, killed somebody.
The media has a vested interest in helping you mix up these two words. Please be aware that while they describe similar concepts, they are quite different.

I said they don’t have to be informed at all and they don’t.

I can distribute a modified riscos without telling anyone as long as I include the sources with it. If ROOL decide they want to use the parts of the redistribution they can.

1.2.4 You undertake, in respect of each Derivative Work that You distribute,
to make the whole source code of every individual component of the Derivative
Work available for unrestricted access by third parties by including a copy of
the source code with Your distribution and/or by uploading the source code to
the official RISC OS source code repository at
www.riscosopen.org/content/sources

I can distribute a modified riscos without telling anyone as long as I include the sources with it.

Provided you comply with the licence restrictions and conditions.

Personally I think the linux GPL sort of has a bit of a clash with this one unless you’re careful:

2.2 You may not impose on any third party to whom You have distributed copies of RISC OS or any Derivative Work any licence restrictions other than those set out in this Licence.

I don’t know how anyone else reads that but I read it as saying do what you like, except commercial use unless you comply with things like 2.4 (OEM licence requirements), but whatever happens the resultant code must be released under the Castle licence.

Generally speaking, I’d say it translates as “you may not release the derivative work under any licence which has different restrictions”. Given that all versions of GPL and similar have different restrictions than the Castle licence (either more or less restrictive)… well what’s the modern parlance? FAIL?

I said they don’t have to be informed at all and they don’t.

[…]

I can distribute a modified riscos without telling anyone as long as I include the sources with it.

Only… That’s not what the licence actually says. me. Fail. Duh.

“[…] Work available for unrestricted access by third parties by including a copy of the source code with Your distribution and/or by uploading the source code to the official RISC OS source code repository at […]”

Option 1 – you distribute your code, with sources and also by uploading a copy of the sources to the repo.

There is no option 3 (give out modified version with sources and don’t tell ROOL) as the and/or you highlighted evaluates in both cases to providing a copy of the code to the repo. In other words, modification notification is implicit by this action.
[IANAL] [long day, tired, etc, fail, fail, fail…]

especialy as the Linux kernel is explicitly GPLv2 only

…which is a Good Thing.

Mostly this lies in the interpretation of “Linked”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Loadable_Linux_kernel_modules

And, Linus himself says:
“I personally consider anything a “derived work” that needs special hooks in the kernel to function with Linux (i.e., it is not acceptable to make a small piece of GPL-code as a hook for the larger piece), as that obviously implies that the bigger module needs “help” from the main kernel.
Similarly, I consider anything that has intimate knowledge about kernel internals to be a derived work."
[http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Kernel/proprietary-kernel-modules.html]
Which greatly complicates things, to the point where a customised Linux kernel written to interface with RISC OS could be argued that in this case, RISC OS is the “derivative work”. As is the American way, such questions are expected to be settled in a courtroom. Anybody up for that?

Best option is to keep RISC OS and GPL entirely separate. This does, of course, present problems with using a Linux kernel. But, then, there are other kernels with less onerous licences.
https://wiki.freebsd.org/FreeBSD/arm/

Only… That’s not what the licence actually says.

“[…] Work available for unrestricted access by third parties by including a copy of the source code with Your distribution and/or by uploading the source code to the official RISC OS source code repository at […]”

Ohhhh…. yes it does. Well it’s getting near pantomime season.

And/or means you can put an and or an or at that point. Replace it with or and the whole statement is true if the statement to the left of the or is true or the statement to the right of the or is true. Therefore you only need to include the source code with the distribution.

And/or means you can put an and or an or at that point.

I agree, “and/or” is really the English equivalent of Boolean OR, whereas just “or” means Boolean EOR. Oops!

For what it’s worth, the kernel modifications are also potentially useful for ROLF on ARM, which would let RISC OS applications and their modules run without ROLF’s ARM emulator (provided they use the “right” instructions to return from SWIs), therefore faster. Running RISC OS applications without an emulator and without any RISC OS code was what an earlier attempt, in June 2011, was intended to achieve.

I agree. ‘And/or’ is simply a more explicit way of saying ‘or’ but making it clear that the non-exclusive or (doing both) is also permitted/encouraged. ‘You shall paint the wall blue and/or paint the ceiling red’ means that you can have a blue wall (with the ceiling any colour you like), a red ceiling (with the wall any colour you like) or both (blue wall and red ceiling).