Floppy driver board

You’ll notice lots of talk about data structures and such.

Think about it. A caller knowing the specifics of data structures used by the callee? That’s like every SWI that exists… It’s ludicrous.

I’m out. Between nemo’s increasingly aggressive tone and Rick comparing the GPL to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it’s clear no rational discussion is possible from this point.

As a final statement from me, on Jon’s original casual suggestion of incorporating Arculator code (which is where this all started, remember?) :

• Incorporating the code directly into a non-GPL module such as ADFS4 would be a clear license violation
• Putting the code into a separate module via a thin veneer is, if not a clear violation, is a very obvious attempt to circumvent it and would negatively impact on ROOL’s reputation in the open source community (not to mention me)

Done. Goodbye.

and Rick comparing the GPL to the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Actually, I was saying that “just make everything GPL” is as ridiculous and dumb as saying “just let Russia win”. I was not comparing the GPL to an illegal war, more pointing out the stupidity of the response that happens when somebody completely misses the point.

I’m out too, as having read the FAQ and the text several times, it’s clear that there is no rational discussion period.

The question of linkage simply doesn’t exist at all in the licence, it’s simply around whether or not the parts are distributed as a whole. Everything else is people bringing their own interpretations which simply aren’t backed up by what the licence itself actually says.

This just reminds me why I don’t touch GPL with a bargepole. It’s a religion, not a way of giving out software and/or source code.

Whatever, I have better things to do than rehash this nonsense time and time again.

*BYE

To be clear, I’m not being aggressive. I’m not attempting to insult anyone. That the person who wrote the words and the person who reads the words might have different understandings of what the words mean is another manifestation of the same problem.

Putting the code into a separate module via a thin veneer is, if not a clear violation,

Either it’s a violation (why?) or it isn’t. It can’t be an unclear violation in the same way that one can’t be somewhat pregnant.

is a very obvious attempt to circumvent it

Define ‘circumvent’ versus ‘comply’. The absence of a definition for the word ‘linkage’ continues to loom elephantine in the room. Are you implying (cos you’re not defining) that simply using GPL code in any way requires everything to be GPL’d? That calling a SWI in a GPL’d module requires the caller to be GPL’d? That running a GPL executable under an OS requires that OS to be GPL’d?

Or, is the SWI/Vector interface an ‘air-gap’ beyond which the GPL infection does not pass?

Why won’t you define what your chosen licence means?

and would negatively impact on ROOL’s reputation in the open source community (not to mention me)

Then define what wouldn’t! I’m not being aggressive, I’m asking you to define the words that you are relying on to impugn that reputation (and it won’t be my reputation – I’m not going to do any of these things).

Rick wrote

The question of linkage simply doesn’t exist at all in the licence,

Terms and Conditions; 1 Source Code; Para 4: “dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require”

13 Affero: “you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single combined work”

Then in the “How to apply” guidance it states “If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library.”

If someone is going to apply that to RISC OS software they must be prepared to define what “link” means and doesn’t mean.

it’s simply around whether or not the parts are distributed as a whole. Everything else is people bringing their own interpretations which simply aren’t backed up by what the licence itself actually says.

Define “as a whole”! One executable? One application directory? One disc? One download? Rhetorical.

Sadly I have to agree with you regarding the ‘religion’ bit, it does appear to be used as a set of magic words. I would very much prefer for the words to have a meaning that would be so clear we would not have to still be discussing it in 2023.

But if everyone is going to run away instead of defining the words, then I will define them:

SWIs and Vectors are not a form of linking and are not subject to the constraints of the GPL.
<insert change-my-mind meme>

nemo, quick note – I’ve hopefully been clear all along that I’m referring to version 2 of the licence, as that’s the one Sarah has chosen as well as the Linux kernel. Some people have issues with content in version 3.
Version 2 says nothing about the linking, all of that guff is in the FAQ and simply isn’t backed up by the licence. It’s disappointing to see version 3 is trying to overreach even further…

it is batshit crazy and quite likely to be thrown out of any sane court.

So, quite likely to have a decent run in most US states, then?
It’s a shame that Sarah decided to licence as GPL
It’s a shame that Sarah decided not to relicence with a more compatible licence.

It is what it is. Time to move on.

BTW. If using SWIs and Vectors is to be considered “linking” is it possible to actually run GPL software on RO?

SWIs and Vectors are not a form of linking and are not subject to the constraints of the GPL.

Rational people: 100%

Zealots: Nay! Let us not taint our code by running it there.

Is ADFS4 GPL? Because Arculator is, and I’m not relicensing it.

It’s under the Apache 2.0 licence. So one who would wan’t to use some Arculator code and some RISC OS code to make a new product will simply license the whole under GPL.

Not a big deal.

SWIs and Vectors are not a form of linking and are not subject to the constraints of the GPL.

Correct. But, some legal actions did validate the fact that to use GPL code in a product, even to call a GPL exe from a non GPL product could be seen as a ‘use of GPL code’.

Hancom was sued just for calling Ghostscript.exe from its office suite. And loose the trial. Yes, it can go as far. And yes, it’s stupid: that means that you don’t have the right to use ANY non open source software under Linux or its derivated (Android for example). So, yes, there is some discussion around this point.

RISC OS is modular so GPL is not really relevant

If you read carefully each word of this comment, you’ll see all was said here.

Occasionally, the ROOL forum users remind us why we don’t bother with the forum.One thread has a suggestion that because RISC OS is modular, the GPL is irrelevant. It then devolves into arguments about how the GPL is bad becuase they can’t circumvent it to steal code they want.

If you read carefully each work of this twitter post, you’ll understand what ‘toxic’ means.

ADFS4 … It’s under the Apache 2.0 licence. So one who would wan’t to use some Arculator code and some RISC OS code to make a new product will simply license the whole under GPL.

I had suggested that in another place. And that would have been true if Arculator were to be GPL v3 and not v2 as it looks from the GitHub.

If you read carefully each work of this twitter post

Wow. Who posted that? Very blinkered view of the discussion.

Not a big deal.

Does mean, though, that the final result would never be reintegrated back into the primary OS.

If […] is it possible to actually run GPL software on RO?

Argh!
Run!
Hide!

;)

I had suggested that in another place. And that would have been true if Arculator were to be GPL v3 and not v2 as it looks from the GitHub.

And you’re perfectly right Stuart.

Just for information, you don’t have the right to use Apache 2.0 code in GPL v2 code (a patent issue). You don’t even have the right to link to an Apache 2.0 library from GPL v2 code. Let’s call a cat a cat, GPL v2 software is higly illegal under any Apache 2.0 licenced operating system. So under RISC OS.

https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html

Hancom was sued just for calling Ghostscript.exe from its office suite.

Not quite. They distributed Ghostscript along with their software (which led to torturous arguments about the aggregate clause), but as far as I understand Ghostscript uses the AGPL licence and Hancom were providing their product under a SaaS method and that is what they primarily lost on.

is higly illegal

In the US, certainly. One could rack up “penalties” of a lifetime in jail plus a debt equal to the GDP of Denmark.

In saner legal systems, it’s “unlawful” as opposed to “illegal”, meaning it’s a civil case rather than a criminal one.

How does this go in France? As far as I understand it, you don’t exactly have “copyright” as I would understand it, but instead an author/creator has “moral rights” and “rights of authorship”, which are similar (Berne Convention)…but different.

Usefully, in order to qualify in France, there appears to be a need for some sort of human intellectual contribution to the work in question, so France might have just saved itself from drowning in AI generated crap. WIN! ;)

Let’s call a cat a cat

Let’s not. Cat is a God. Respect her as such, puny human.

the final result would never be reintegrated back into the primary OS

Doesn’t mean that such a forked loadable module wouldn’t be useful to a couple of people, just as we have today with FAT32FS (oh no, its “dynamically linked” to FileSwitch (if that is your belief system))

All the discussion that I’ve read here suggests to me that people are aware of a possible licence conflict, looking at how two entities could be made to work together while respecting all licence terms, and what might be necessary in order to do so. I don’t see any suggestion of attempts to circumvent anything.

Right back at the beginning, mention was made of APD code.
I’m guessing this is some sort of disc image, but being based upon the flux data read from the disc, it’ll be everything (ID bytes, sector marks, etc). Is this correct?

Perhaps what would work here is to implement a virtual 1772 FDC that can open the raw disc file and return the expected data as if it were a floppy controller?

Perhaps what would work here is to implement a virtual 1772 FDC that can open the raw disc file and return the expected data as if it were a floppy controller?

If only one would look for the right solution instead of arguing on distribution licenses, maybe that solution is already available somewhere:

https://github.com/Torlus/firebee-fpga/tree/master/FalconIO_SDCard_IDE_CF/WF_FDC1772_IP

It is possible to implement a WD 1772 FDC on FPGA and just use that.

For the shenanigans on distribution licenses, again, if one doesn’t DISTRIBUTE the final product the distribution licenses do not apply, this has nothing to do with RISC OS architecture. Nor it has to do with Copyright.

Rick, if I remember well I mentioned many times that to excecise any rights, included giving them away, one must own such rights in the first place, hence yes Copyright is required to execise any distribution license (not just the GPL). And again GPL is only a distribution license.

Whatever are the opinions, if one creates a single SOLUTION (aka a combination of different components both GPL and non-GPL) where such components integrate and link (even if just at runtime) and such person doesn’t wants to comply with the GPL, it will end up only in the usual “work around” that is package the non GPL portion in a separate media and package the GPL portion on another media and ask the end user to combine them together.

I worked on a Linux distro for years, and there was no other way. Every other Linux distro out there have the so called free and non-free repositories and media, even back in the day there were multiple CD-ROMs, then DVDs, now on-line repos.

The general lawyer’s definition of “linking”/“integrating” (despite what it actually means in technical terms), is: Does your non-GPL software DEPENDS on GPL software? If yes then you either have to comply with the GPL requirements OR you do not distribute them together as a solution. So, the only work around is to package them in seprate repositories and distribute them separately and if a user installs them together on their system it’s their responsability.

What would happen if a user don’t install the GPL portion? the software in this case would not work.

Despite the SWis and Vectors, one cannot change the original license of the software that is being made as a component.

The fact that there were people thinking that the GPL could be a problem, only means they do not wish to comply with it, but what comply with it means has not been defined, and I am pretty sure that there was just a bunch of folks who wanted to say somethign against the GPL, because most likely what will happen is that the entire source of such an effort will be released and that is already complying with the GPL.

If then one wish to pick a license that is not compatible with the GPL, again be my guest, no one will stop you if you distribute them as separate entities, this even without the SWIs/Vectors, so again nothign to do with RISC OS Architecture.

I’m out too

Doesn’t seems to me you are out thought XD, sorry just joking! :)

BTW. If using SWIs and Vectors is to be considered “linking” is it possible to actually run GPL software on RO?

It’s more a concept of “dependecy” or so I have seen in actual law cases, aka “does software A depends on GPL software B?”, if the answer is YES then one enters the realm of potential troubles, then one might be able to demostrate indipendence etc, but it takes time and work, it’s not something that is ready out of the box and everybody are happy forever after.

The problem is not just the linking for example, it’s also potential patents behind the code. As I said (and it sounds like people agrees on that) it’s a muddy, not clearly defined, and that becomes ground for lawyers to work their way instead of technology proving things.

But to me the thing that really feels like this is all madness here is that there has been a lot of opinionated talking while I don’t see what patent or secret code people are going to develop (if someone here is actually going to develop anything for real, btw), so why not just to comply. In any case whatever, a good solution for the problem in the topic is on the link I shared above.

Found this (MIT license), any use?

https://github.com/picosonic/bbc-fdc

That looks like meeting the requirements, and with a different board layout could be a simple “hat”
Network shared floppy?

There you go: “circumvent” the GPL by looking for/at code with a less antagonistic licence.

Does the flux floppy board work like the how the Amiga handled floppy’s – ie no Disc controller chip?

Err – I’m surprised that Sprow hasn’t poked his nose in here – since he has a fare amount of info on BBC B 3.5inch drives and RISCOS OS PIC controllers on his Web Site!

How do you search for only “1772 controller info” ?

[Edit]

Answering my own question (Add WD to 1772) :-| )

Of interest to you, Colin? http://www.zimmers.net/anonftp/pub/cbm/documents/chipdata/wd177x/index.html

If you’re after the 1772 tech docs, use this one

Funny how things turn out looking for stuff- “this one” produced ‘do you want to download again’ :-)

Is there any info on how to drive the chip?

Seems there are 1772 chips available – as per Stardot – 10 pounds each.

Rick remarked

I’ve hopefully been clear

I’m sure you have and I didn’t notice. V2 is even worse!

Steve said

If using SWIs and Vectors is to be considered “linking” is it possible to actually run GPL software on RO?

And that is precisely the point I repeatedly attempted to make. Given the existence of a theoretical GPL’d filing system, is non-GPL’d code permitted to save files? Because if it is (and of course it is) then any other SWI (and by necessity because we’re not the Kernel, Vector call) must be similarly unencumbered. It’s inescapable.

Static linking is an obvious no-no. “Dynamic linking” by loading a shared library and finding its entry points is also a no-no. But SWIs are ‘events’ in the broadest sense of the word (I don’t mean “Events” in RO speak) and a particular module just an event handler. There is no ongoing link – from microsecond to microsecond a different module may be called. It’s even possible to veneer SWIs even without a module.

If “event handling” is to be considered “linking”, then you can’t access non-GPL websites using your GPL browser.

Dave decided

I don’t see any suggestion of attempts to circumvent anything.

QUITE SO, and I called out that bullshit for what it was, and will always do so. Nobody gets to berate Rick round here. That’s my job.

Stuart suggested

“dynamically linked” to FileSwitch

How do you know it’s FileSwitch? All you’ve done is call OS_FSControl, which calls FSCV, which may on one installation result in FileSwitch becoming involved, but which may in another involve completely different code.

The ‘jump table’ argument is irrelevant – you don’t know and have no control over what actually receives the request. You just issue the SWI and something responds. This is not the same as loading ‘foobar.so’ or ‘uckyuck.dll’ and calling a specific entry point.

And any attempt to muddy the technical waters by suggesting that code might “depend” on something (‘dependency’ has a clear technical meaning in the building of code) doesn’t work as a rhetorical device either: Doesn’t a word processor depend on a filing system and printer API? Of course it does. Does it depend on any particular filing system or printer? NO. So the WP calling FS and Print APIs does not infringe. And an implementation of an FS or Print API cannot cause that WP to infringe. And if you contrive to put a GPL FS Module and a non-GPL Task on the same continent, country, server, backup tape, zip file or download does not at some point in that list cause “linkage”.

[There may be an obscure point to be made about the difference between RMEnsure and RMLoad but I’m tired]