FOSDEM

Does anyone have any experience of the FOSDEM conference in Brussels? It has been suggested that we should represent RISC OS there, now that it is properly Open Source, and make contacts within the community.

Having never attended, I’m wondering what the best approach would be, and whether it is something that we should be doing. There seems to be an emphasis on talks and lectures, but also stands and exhibitors too. If anyone has experience, it would be extremely helpful/valuable.

Thanks in advance,

Andrew

Have you tried this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSDEM

Greg

Looks like RISC OS is well supported here – the RISC OS cogwheel is part of the logo.

I know FOSDEM from second-hand experience (a few colleagues of mine visited past FOSDEMs). It is very nerdy, very linuxy, very GPLified, almost exclusively developers.

You’d need a very good plan to introduce the wonders of RISC OS to such a breed of people. Being developers, they will want to know which developer tools RISC OS has (answer: something between none and nothing modern), if they can build their professional career on RISC OS (answer that for yourself…), if that RISC OS has a powerful command line…and where they can learn more about developing for RISC OS.

It might be a very frustrating experience.

It might be a very frustrating experience.

It will be.

Somehow I feeel that riscos isn’t really opensource with the apache license. With current license there is no guarantee that source will be public.
There is also a lot of things that is expected from opensource vendors, that we don’t fullfill.

In my opinion GPL is a very good license since it protects the developers.

Anyway, FOSDEM have different “paths” or sections. One is microkernel. The Genode folks attends and they have a different license.

I think that going to FOSDEM , is a good idea, if you want to learn about how the opensource ecosystem works.

In my opinion GPL is a very good license since it protects the developers.

Does it?

Explain the whole “linkage” thing in terms that apply to RISC OS (or, in fact, anything they isn’t a Linux kernel).

Explain how you plan to resolve the issue of using GPL alongside code licenced under alternative terms – CDDL and bsd, and no, relicensing everything is not an option.

Explain why the position of the FSF appears to be “the courts will decide”. I’m a programmer, dammit, not a lawyer, and I don’t want to find out years down the line that I’m in some sort of trouble because a half-assed ill conceived licence was interpreted differently to how I interpreted it.

Explain why everybody talks big about all this freedom, yet the GPL is only actually compatible with itself. That’s certainly not a definition of “freedom”.

The GPL makes many great promises and a few vague threats, but really doesn’t provide sufficient freedom nor clarity for me to choose to go anywhere near it.

there is no guarantee that source will be public.

For anybody who has ever tried to examine/fix their router, internet-at-things gizmo, or whatever … you’ll find for all of the fanboyism around the GPL, ultimately it makes no reliable guarantee either. The FSF have been pushing back, but when you have a hundred thousand vendors and most of them based in places that don’t give a crap about American law, you’ll realise that ten wins and ten thousand “can’t” isn’t progress.

Does it?
Explain the whole “linkage” thing in terms that apply to RISC OS (or, in fact, anything they isn’t a Linux kernel).

I know it is a problem and I don’t suggest going GPL right now for riscos.

But

I do know , that if I realease something opensource , I personally don’t want it to be locked in to someones commercial app, unless they pay me billions :)

Anyway,

So . to be back on topic.

Going to FOSDEM , is a good idea.

Somehow I feeel that riscos isn’t really opensource with the apache license.

That doesn’t make sense. The Apache licence is an approved OSI Open Source licence. You cannot get “more” open source. Arguably, the Apache licence is more open than the GPL, because it does not make any other OSI Open Source code adopt a different licence when “linked” against it (especially without given a clear explanation on what “link” does exactly mean).

That doesn’t make sense.

Yes sorry.

It is just that I somewhat fear that riscos will be locked down. I also fear the lack of knowledge about how the open source ecosystem works.

Maybe move this to aldershot! :D

I do know , that if I realease something opensource , I personally don’t want it to be locked in to someones commercial app, unless they pay me billions :)

The GPL does not protect you in any way from that. If you decide something to be open, others can make profit from it. That’s the whole idea of open source after all. The weakness of the GPL is that the point of “release” is ill-defined. If I “release” the software onto my own server, I have no obligation to make the source available. In the modern world of “software as a service”, the GPL gets ever more ill-defined. That’s why the AGPL was invented, which adds even more vague restrictons.

Same problem with languages that delay the “link” stage to the user’s computer. Like e.g. Java. According to current interpretation of the GPL, I can distribute a GPLed jar alongside non-GPLed code as long as the non-GPLed code also works without that GPL jar, i.e. it only provides additional functionality and not core functionality.

Looks like RISC OS is well supported here – the RISC OS cogwheel is part of the logo.

If only! I don’t think even an intellectual property lawyer could argue that a mauve monochrome 13-tooth cog wheel with eyes was infringingly similar to our 8-tooth rainbow. Still, it would be nice for RISC OS to be seen around in open source circles.