GPL in ROM

Slow response:
Busy/tired etc.

I could build some electronics to replace the IOMD ROM directly with a CD-ROM; really, honestly I could. Ok, so the boot strap would be a little more involved, but perhaps you are starting to see my point?
I have a lot of experience in electronics and I promise you there is a part of every motherboard which is responsible for making the initial boot happen.

Not what I do as things shifted several times¹ but my professional qualification is Electrical and Electronic engineering. I was playing with some of the early transistors, used once by students and discarded, when I was in junior school.
However, I do know that the IOMD is an I/O chip and that the processor actually starts with a reset that points at a memory location which amazingly is in the ROM.²

Rick was very limited in his scope when he mentioned how the RPC and Archimedes start up. I’ll make it less so: “The processor, when it comes out of a RESET condition will branch to a specific place.”
This can be set internally to the processor or externally via links/dip switches that force certain bits high so the value read gives the jump address. There you go simple description works for any processor x86 included.

Even if you think that GPL is not the answer it’s hard to see why you would defend the current state of RISC OS from a licensing perspective. It is possible to do something about it. The first step is admitting that there is a problem.

Simon, you seem to skip over salient points, like when people have said that the current situation is the best compromise available at present.
If you read what has been said and look at changes in the CVS you will note that the closed sections of source are diminishing, i.e. people are addressing the issue but it is a long process.
Basically people want to follow the bsd and cddl diplomatic route rather than the GPL stormtrooper³. So far the diplomats have done us a lot of favours.

The bull at a gate method tends to leave the bull with a headache, sometimes ruins the gate and doesn’t achieve the object.

Any more than 3-4 pages of thread and I get labelled ‘a troll’ though; so I will step out of this thread now

No, not “troll” but very reminiscent of people at work that argue with things I’ve said then run away when the answer they get doesn’t fit their world view and then later claim either they hadn’t said/asked what everyone else heard or claim to be misunderstood or just hide and wait for people to forget that they were wrong.⁵
Below I will re-iterate why you’re wrong.

I think my point was made a while ago anyway.

Er, yes. Before you started this thread in fact. Everyone knows that GPL is your only option, while they (I’m sure it is more than me) view it as a single but not highly favoured option. Others exist that do a better job.

In short you are selecting the wrong tool for the job and attempting to force that tool on people who carefully (it was several years) selected the tool(s) in use. Impatience or evangelism on your part?⁶ I can’t make my mind up at present.

¹ For my age group computers and networks were things that happened rather than existing kit. Computers were big things in other buildings with punch cards and whizzy new features like BASIC for “interactive” sessions. Checking dates ARPANET was declared operational the year before I left school for university

² In the early code that gets run there is a mix of authorship and licence so you can’t glibly assign it GPL status (which the GPL wrongly tries to do to associated code ) without consulting the rights owner.(If you can contact them)

Rick was very limited in his scope when he mentioned how the RPC and Archimedes start up. I’ll make it less so: “The processor, when it comes out of a RESET condition will branch to a specific place.”

Yes, I agree; there is a bootloader (the CPU executes a branch command – which is code, i.e. a program, i.e. a bootloader) – I think I mentioned that before. It still makes absolutely no difference. The image on CD-ROM/SDcard/whatever is still the same as an image on ROM. Therefore the storage medium makes no difference from a licensing perspective. What you are stating is that the amount of code in the boot-loader makes a difference (at least I hope so or none of what you stated on the subject really makes sense to me). Otherwise if I put the same image on a CD-ROM or a physical ROM what is the difference? Answer: The medium. Everything else about the image (which is the manner of distribution – not the content of the distribution) is the same. So are there different licensing rules for a physical ROM containing an image and a CD-ROM containing the same image? Answer: No.

No, not “troll” but very reminiscent of people at work that argue with things I’ve said then run away when the answer they get doesn’t fit their world view and then later claim either they hadn’t said/asked what everyone else heard or claim to be misunderstood or just hide and wait for people to forget that they were wrong

Well, I am in very good company in this forum then. Quite a bit of ‘pot calling kettle black’ going on around here imho.

Er, yes. Before you started this thread in fact. Everyone knows that GPL is your only option, while they (I’m sure it is more than me) view it as a single but not highly favoured option. Others exist that do a better job.

But, my OP was about how I could use GPL code – exploring the restrictions others perceive to exist such as the “not in my ROM” attitude. I was trying to decide on using an RM for my GPL application, or just embedding the code in the main executable. An RM seemed to make more sense from a design perspective, but embedding the code was easier from a licensing perspective (even if it precludes the ability to place the RM in ROM). The fact that the merest mention of GPL sends Rick and others off in a spinning tiffy isn’t really my problem is it?

Seems if I stop discussing the issue in a thread I am accused of “running away when the answer doesn’t fit my view” and if I continue to discuss it I’m a troll.

Nicely done!

I appreciate that others are working towards a true open RISC OS (and this is a good thing!), but until I can grab the source and fork the project the freedom you think you have isn’t actually yours. (and yes I know forking = bad, etc. etc. but the fact you don’t have the freedom to do so, means it’s not open – not to you and not to me).

If you’d like to discuss the bootloader issue some more (I’m happy to continue the discussion) please open a new thread and I will join in there.

I’m not a programmer so this might be stupid but here’s my tuppence worth (free for a short period).

I suspect there may be an issue with labels here. So with two rhetorical questions;

1. When is a ROM not a ROM?
2. In what way does a ROM offer two functions and thereby differ from a CD?

Not really, the RISC OS ‘ROM’ is the RISC OS ‘ROM’; if you deliver it on a ROM or via a download on this site, it’s the same thing. That was my point. There have been many mentions that the IOMD ROM is an exception… it’s not. If it does or does not apply to the IOMD image then the same is true for any other way of distributing and storing the ROM (such as a Raspi image for example). I can give it to you on a CD or on a Floppy; the ‘thing’ I give you is the same in all cases. A ROM could also contain just music data just like an audio CD. The ‘trick’ here is not to be holistic, but focus on the actual subject: the RISC OS image.

You can boot form a CD-Rom: the image will still be a single file, so with a single license. Now, if you want to say that components could be individual files, with their own licenses, that’s different. And that’s the case today for all the disc components delivered with RISC OS. Here the code can use any license you want.

So are there different licensing rules for a physical ROM containing an image and a CD-ROM containing the same image?

True: the image file on a CD-Rom will still be under the Castle License.

Therefore the storage medium makes no difference from a licensing perspective.

I’m sure you won’t be the slightest bit surprised if I disagree. ;-)

The exemption from the viral-licensing stuff applies to “a collection of files”. In this respect a CD-ROM can contain content with various licences which don’t interfere with each other.

Difference between ROM and not a ROM? Try this – a ROM contains code that is (usually) executed in situ. A CD-ROM is never, ever, executed in situ. In this situation, instead of asking if a ROM is like a CD-ROM, we should instead ask how much is a ROM like a “program”? After all, isn’t an operating system a really complicated program?

David, I agree that the harddisc4 image and the ROM are two separate distributions; they contain very different things. What I was reacting to was the comments that, if there was GPL code in the ROM image you couldn’t use it for the IOMD as it is a physical ROM. A filesystem is an organised BLOB of things, so is a ROM (even if it’s just executable code blacks placed one after another). Perhaps the end-point of my line of argumentation is that you cannot have GPL code in the ROM or any other distribution medium; or you can have it in both. The argument that a physical ROM is a special case is what I don’t agree with.

So to Frederick I would state that the issue is the term ‘ROM’. What we are talking about is a distribution of the OS. It can be on ROM, it can be on CD-ROM or you can download it as a .zip file. It’s still the same distribution so the same licensing rules apply equally to all media. A ROM doesn’t offer two functions, it’s no different from a CD-ROM in its essential purpose which is to store things. If you wrote out the contents of the RISC OS ROM image on paper and distributed that, the same license rules would apply as it’s still the same distribution of the OS.

So, in essence if you make the statement that GPL code is bad because you couldn’t include it in the IOMD ROM (i.e. the ROM is an exceptional case with regards to licensing) then, I believe, you are mistaken.

Difference between ROM and not a ROM? Try this – a ROM contains code that is (usually) executed in situ. A CD-ROM is never, ever, executed in situ. In this situation, instead of asking if a ROM is like a CD-ROM, we should instead ask how much is a ROM like a “program”? After all, isn’t an operating system a really complicated program?

It’s a nice try, but if I copy the code RISC OS image from CD-ROM into RAM and then execute it it’s functionality identical to the ROM. The ROM was blank – you programmed it and booted it. The RAM was blank you programmed it and booted it. If the ROM and the CD-ROM both had the same distribution image of RISC OS then the rules of the licensing apply equally to both. i.e. the IOMD ROM image is not a special case at all.

What you are stating is that the amount of code in the boot-loader makes a difference (at least I hope so or none of what you stated on the subject really makes sense to me).

No, the amount of code in the boot loader makes no difference.
In the pre-SoC devices the “boot loader” is essentially a hardwired start point for reading code. Since the code can only be read directly from a memory device ROM or RAM and the RAM is empty (or filled with random content of no use to anything) at initial startup.

In the SoC hardware the image of a RISC OS ROM is copied to a specific point in the memory map by the boot loader (e.g. U-Boot in the OMAP systems) so things are rather obscured.

Otherwise if I put the same image on a CD-ROM or a physical ROM what is the difference? Answer: The medium. Everything else about the image (which is the manner of distribution – not the content of the distribution) is the same. So are there different licensing rules for a physical ROM containing an image and a CD-ROM containing the same image? Answer: No.

I believe so. Otherwise you couldn’t have a CD full of software with mixed licence types.

Well, I am in very good company in this forum then. Quite a bit of ‘pot calling kettle black’ going on around here imho.

Personally speaking – I don’t start arguments, just correct what I know to be wrong. It’s a “cheat” that allows me to “win” all the time.

But, my OP was about how I could use GPL code – exploring the restrictions others perceive to exist such as the “not in my ROM” attitude. I was trying to decide on using an RM for my GPL application, or just embedding the code in the main executable.

Nothing wrong with creating a RM under GPL, just don’t include it in the ROM image and cause conflicts with regard to GPL conditions.
This bit is the most important part of this reply. Read it until it sinks in.
No one has issues with you writing GPL code to form part of an application (aside from it not being as nice and neighbourly as other options).
Just don’t include it in a ROM image.

The fact that the merest mention of GPL sends Rick and others off in a spinning tiffy isn’t really my problem is it?

No, but when people suggest that it would be nicer if it was under something like bsd or cddl it shouldn’t cause hissy fits either.

Seems if I stop discussing the issue in a thread I am accused of “running away when the answer doesn’t fit my view” and if I continue to discuss it I’m a troll.
Nicely done!

Just an observation that as soon as the discussion pointed out that you repeating the same things and that they still weren’t true no matter how often repeated you seemed to want to up sticks to another thread.

I appreciate that others are working towards a true open RISC OS (and this is a good thing!), but until I can grab the source and fork the project the freedom you think you have isn’t actually yours. (and yes I know forking = bad, etc. etc. but the fact you don’t have the freedom to do so, means it’s not open – not to you and not to me).

Ah, you mean free to create a derivative work¹ without having to pay if you include it in a commercial item².

¹ The standard definition rather than the GPL which seems to regard attached or associated code as derivative work even if the GPL item is an adjunct.

² add some closed code and claim it’s super secret stuff so no-one else can use your code in their copy hardware seems to be the standard business use of GPL.
Whether this is intended by the GPL is largely irrelevant, companies do it. One thing the Castle licence has is the limitation that if you’re doing something commercial you have to pay them a nominal amount – otherwise it’s pretty much open season provided you put ALL code back into the ROOL repository. I’d say that in some respects that makes it better than

If you’d like to discuss the bootloader issue some more (I’m happy to continue the discussion) please open a new thread and I will join in there.

Interesting idea.

You both wrong :)

David, I agree that the harddisc4 image and the ROM are two separate distributions; they contain very different things. What I was reacting to was the comments that, if there was GPL code in the ROM image you couldn’t use it for the IOMD as it is a physical ROM. A filesystem is an organised BLOB of things, so is a ROM

Short answer: not at all.

You could mix GPL and non GPL code only if the ROM was seen as a true archive. If a filesystem is made for the ROM image, the problem will be solved. In an archive, you can mix GPL and non GPL code. The same way, you could mix GPL and non GPL code in an ELF file, with the suitable filesystem :) The point is that without a filesystem, a ROM file is a unique file, as en EXE, with a unique license (from a GPL point of view)

It’s no different from a CD-ROM in its essential purpose which is to store things. If you wrote out the contents of the RISC OS ROM image on paper and distributed that, the same license rules would apply as it’s still the same distribution of the OS.

Technically, a CD-Rom and an EXE just store code, but GPL made a difference between the two.

So, in essence if you make the statement that GPL code is bad because you couldn’t include it in the IOMD ROM (i.e. the ROM is an exceptional case with regards to licensing) then, I believe, you are mistaken.

I don’t say it’s bad. I say it’s impossible.

I believe so. Otherwise you couldn’t have a CD full of software with mixed licence types.

You can (most Linux OS do that). Separate files can be considered as separate projects. The same is true for an archive or an installer, but not true with some firmware (for example in DSL boxes). The right question to ask is ‘can I access to the GPL code directly or not?’

The argument that a physical ROM is a special case is what I don’t agree with.

Shame, because although the minders for GPL are happy with mixed licence stuff on a CD, they were less than happy when some GPL code appeared in the ROM – specifically the HAL element.

So, in essence if you make the statement that GPL code is bad because you couldn’t include it in the IOMD ROM (i.e. the ROM is an exceptional case with regards to licensing) then, I believe, you are mistaken.

No, people are saying it’s a bad choice because it conflicts.
Since you can’t magically change the things it conflicts with take the alternate path and choose a licence that doesn’t conflict.

You get far more done in life if you work on changing lots of things that can be changed there and then and coming back for the isolated bits later.
It’s an aspect of the 80/20 rule – sometimes you do the 80% and find the obstacles on the 20% disappeared or even the 20% disappeared.

If the ROM and the CD-ROM both had the same distribution image of RISC OS then the rules of the licensing apply equally to both.

Yes, the ROM image stored in ROM and the ROM image stored on a CD have the same status – you can’t put items into the image that have a conflicting licence.

You can put the items into another file on the CD ROM, much as you could put a GPL code set onto a CD with BSD on it without the two conflicting. We won’t speak of Windows plus GPL as the CD would be sold and that doesn’t fit with the GPL except as a media cost allowance.

Anyway – bootloaders…

Shame, because although the minders for GPL are happy with mixed license stuff on a CD, they were less than happy when some GPL code appeared in the ROM – specifically the HAL element.

Well, that really comes back to is one of my main points; the ROM image is the ROM image independent of the medium it’s stored on (can we at least agree on this?). If I put the ROM image on CD along with a bunch of other stuff they don’t interact as far as the licensing is concerned.

The IOMD ROM image is not an exception to the other ROM images (on disc, on SDcard or on anything else for that matter).

This is important because it has been stated that the IOMD ROM is the reason why no GPL can be included in the ROM image; this is, however, not the case. If I write a GPL’d RM it can be placed in ROM provided it’s interaction with other parts of the ROM don’t contravene the GPL (i.e. you would need to link it to unixlib not the shared C lib so the ROM image would just be the ‘file system’ in which it resides). You can’t put netsurf in there though since that would be bundling a GPL application along with the non-GPL runtime libraries on which it depends (and the GPL specifically states that the user has to get both parts separately). The physical medium of ‘ROM’ has no bearing here. (as a footnote I’d say this is where the HAL issue stems from; the GPL code was an integral part of the overall piece of code – but, since the code it was integrated with was not GPL, it breaks the ‘separate distribution’ clauses.

So, this is good for RISC OS. There are scenarios where GPL code can be included in the ROM image, even for IOMD machines.

<sigh>

but if I […]

If, If, If… You seem to continually keep missing the point that code intended for a ROM is in itself directly executable, it normally executes directly from the ROM where it is. A CD-ROM is not, not ever, executed where it is. It is a collection of files and one or more are transferred into RAM and then is executed.

It does not matter to us what you choose to do with the data. Write it to punch cards for all it matters.

Read this part of the GPL v3 very carefully: You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged.

Now read this part: A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation [blah blah blah]"

The addition of a system module to the operating system could be considered a part of the operating system. Clearly, most of the parts of RISC OS interact with each other, they are not separate and independent works. Equally so, all of the system modules that form the operating system are combined together in a big lump of code that is either read directly from a ROM chip (IOMD release) or loaded into RAM and executed in-place (SoC releases).
With this in mind, it is this part that causes all of us concern: This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged.

I repeat, in case you disregarded the last times it was pointed out: We have been here before. It caused problems before. Etc.

The fact that the merest mention of GPL sends Rick and others off in a spinning tiffy isn’t really my problem is it?

The fact that you evangelise about a licence that tries to wangle its tentacles into code that it has no legitimate rights over shouldn’t be my problem, but when it threatens something that I like, I speak out. I’m sure there are people here that are sick of reading this stuff, but really, if nobody stands up and says “hang on a mo”…

No one has issues with you writing GPL code to form part of an application

…not even me. Do you see me complaining about NetSurf? About Nettle?

David:

Separate files can be considered as separate projects. The same is true for an archive or an installer,

Nope. Read this http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL – it says that you cannot distribute compiled closed-source DLLs along with a GPL program (at all). So you can link to, say, the VisualBasic RunTime, but you cannot include it in your installer as it is non-free. If Simon can argue that a ROM is just data because he can copy it to a CD-ROM or something, then I could argue that the VB RunTime is a necessary Major Component of the language. But, then, read the last line of that section. The “interpretation” of the licence in that way is basically a dig at Windows.

This is important because it has been stated that the IOMD ROM is the reason why no GPL can be included in the ROM image;

Where, exactly? I have mentioned the IOMD as it is an actual ROM (as opposed to a softloaded image), and because you mentioned having a RiscPC and buying the IOMD ROMs so I assumed it would be familiar hardware to you.

This forum has a search and Firefox has a useful feature to highlight matches of IOMD. I see this:

• A lot of talk about physical IOMD ROMs and IOMD memory addressing, going back to April.
• “I even purchased both the full DDE and a set of IOMD ROMs really just to show support” – you, Sep20.
• “It was implied in a previous thread that GPL code could not be included in the IOMD ROM for RISC OS due to the issue of linking GPL with non-GPL code.” – you, Oct3.
• “However there is no barrier to including GPL code (static or relocatable) in the IOMD ROM either.” – you, Oct3.
• “There have been many mentions that the IOMD ROM is an exception… it’s not.” – you, 20 hours ago.

Is this something you have convinced yourself? Like the idea that you seem to believe that it is perfectly okay to include GPL code in the ROM image?
I have invited you to contact the FSF directly. I notice that this was ignored. Who better to say if RISC OS can or cannot contain GPL code within its ROM image alongside non-GPL code than they? Try http://www.fsf.org/about/contact/email

So, this is good for RISC OS. There are scenarios where GPL code can be included in the ROM image, even for IOMD machines.

…says you.

It’s fine for you to build GPL-containing ROMs if you so wish. You hold no copyrights on the rest of RISC OS, so if it is a GPL violation, it is you and you alone that will have to rectify the situation.

The really depressingly sad thing? This whole discussion and every single objection would vanish if you were to choose a non-political non-activist OSI free licence such as the CDDL.

x

If I write a GPL’d RM it can be placed in ROM provided it’s interaction with other parts of the ROM don’t contravene the GPL (i.e. you would need to link it to unixlib not the shared C lib so the ROM image would just be the ‘file system’ in which it resides).

I think you would quickly find that there is far more in the ROM than just the SharedC library that acts as a dependency for pretty much everything that runs in/on RISC OS.
Various items that aren’t essential for the OS but for the applications that run in the OS.

So, this is good for RISC OS. There are scenarios where GPL code can be included in the ROM image, even for IOMD machines.

You seem fixated on the IOMD image for some reason.
I think you need to understand that the distinctive feature of the IOMD image as opposed to the OMAP3 image for example is that the OMAP3 image doesn’t have certain modules, like the ADFS module, that it doesn’t need and the IOMD image doesn’t have modules like SDFS that it doesn’t need.

The IOMD image has a different HAL since it deals with different hardware, in fact the HAL is just there to make parallel OS image builds easier – after all RO4.x didn’t have a HAL at all. The IOMD HAL just gives a backward compatibility element to RO5.

Other than hardware specific elements for each platform there is no difference between on image and any other.

(as a footnote I’d say this is where the HAL issue stems from; the GPL code was an integral part of the overall piece of code – but, since the code it was integrated with was not GPL, it breaks the ‘separate distribution’ clauses.

That was a point of dispute. Is the HAL distinct or is it integrated? To stop the arguments Castle re-wrote the HAL without GPL code.

There are scenarios where GPL code can be included in the ROM image.

Indeed. Just don’t use any facilities in the main block of code in the ROM. So that’s all your IO facilities gone (filesystem access, video, sound, oh and if you answer “integrated” to the question I posed above you can’t access the HAL which means you can’t access anything)

See what we mean about the conflicts if the GPL code is in the ROM image? Don’t put it in the same image and you can use the built in facilities, put it in and you can’t because the GPL (in dictatorial fashion) says so.
So much easier to not put the code where it causes arguments or, in our opinion, to use a more neighbourly licence.

¹ Essentially “small library of extra commands / facilities” equates to “ROM module” throw away the access to those and you have a non-functional program – unless it includes all those facilities in its own code, but then you aren’t using RO anymore. How are you on writing an OS from scratch?

Edit:
Just before posting I noted Colin’s contribution – basically the same as my comment about inclusion in the ROM. Putting it in there makes it useless.

As Rick said not even he objects to people writing GPL code for use on RISC OS.
Of course as I said earlier you could use something more neighbourly, and as Rick put it:
“This whole discussion and every single objection would vanish if you were to choose a non-political non-activist OSI free licence such as the CDDL.”

The really depressingly sad thing? This whole discussion and every single objection would vanish if you were to choose a non-political non-activist OSI free licence such as the CDDL.

True, but it would also vanish if the rest of the code was GPL too, although I wouldn’t be depressed and sad over a piece of code either way; there’s so much more in life to be happy about :)

Is this something you have convinced yourself? Like the idea that you seem to believe that it is perfectly okay to include GPL code in the ROM image?

Yes; am I not allowed to discuss things in order to form a point of view? Are you posting from China or something? Have I changed my mind about certain things? Yes; this isn’t religion, it’s computer science. Of course I can be convinced to change my view point, or even change it based on my own analysis.

Once upon a time I too considered GPL to be a political hardline, but over the course of several years I changed my opinions based on a wide variety of things I learnt and concluded for myself. Freedom is important, and worth some sacrifices to maintain and support.

What I am convinced of (now) is that the IOMD ROM is not an exception amongst the RISC OS images.

You seem fixated on the IOMD image for some reason.

Because it was given as an exception amongst the ROM images by others – and I couldn’t fathom why.

CD-ROM != ROM. CD-ROM gets by on the “it is a filesystem” clause. Sure, you could burn a filesystem into a ROM and load from that, but that’s a mighty peculiar way to use a ROM. Especially since most would need some static code at the start to even get the system running, so is it really a filesystem?

How about you? Ready to shift your opinions based on what you’ve read, learnt and debated with others? Or are you religious in your opinions?

“I even purchased both the full DDE and a set of IOMD ROMs really just to show support” – you, Sep20

A good point; I too believe it’s morally right to pay for software projects which clearly have great effort put into them but I don’t think I should be forced to and I believe that someone who cannot afford to pay should have the same rights as I do despite their financial circumstances (and all of these rights should be protected now and in the future). I have also got an ubuntu hat and backpack, many more Pi’s than I rightfully need, 2 Raspberry Pi t-shirts and a Babbage the bear teddybear. I’m also a member of the EFF.

…says you.

Nice, why not include a ‘your mama’ joke in there for good measure? I don’t see anything in the GPL that excludes inclusion of GPL code in the ROM image (restrictions, yes, exclusion, no).

Nope. Read this http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL – it says that you cannot distribute compiled closed-source DLLs along with a GPL program (at all).

Go back and read it one more time; it is talking about an application which has dependencies on closed-source DLLs. If I have a GPL RM (as a hypothetical example) and it is linked only with UnixLib; it can go in the ROM image.

A GPL application doesn’t require the modules it uses to have a GPL compatible licence because the application calls the module, the module doesn’t call the application.

However this gets problematic with RISC OS. Not only are there CallBacks, but commands, SWI handlers, events… what are they if not the kernel calling the “application”? Control and data transfer goes all over the place.

As Rick said not even he objects to people writing GPL code for use on RISC OS.

! Eeek!

“not even he”? While I think the GPL is a generally bad licence with an ardent army of followers, I have no qualms with stand-alone applications written and released as GPL. The issues of what is and is not GPL is contained within the application. Their code, their choice.
Apply GPL to the system ROM and, well, it stands to open a great big can of worms.

True, but it would also vanish if the rest of the code was GPL too,

Since that isn’t going to happen anytime soon I (and Rick too) was expecting that there might be some likelihood of you using CDDL in a shortish timeframe.
Back to my 80/20 comments: concentrate now on what you can change now.
Bear in mind that you have 100% control on your choice of licence and set that against how much control you have over the actions of a set of people who include people who are difficult to contact never mind persuade to open things up. If the latter was easy the whole source would already be available and open.

Because it was given as an exception amongst the ROM images by others – and I couldn’t fathom why.

Well, it’s an exception in that the hardware has the facilities that RISC OS was built to expect and therefore doesn’t strictly need a HAL. As I said before (maybe not explicitly enough) the HAL on IOMD hardware just makes a level playing field for the RO5.2x OS

! Eeek!
“not even he”?

You don’t regard it as the scribblings of Satan? :)

Maybe more like the neighbour who borrows a tool and never returns it. Later checks reveal it on his garage tool board in its own special place.

Since that isn’t going to happen anytime soon I (and Rick too) was expecting that there might be some likelihood of you using CDDL in a shortish timeframe.

For me, no. I only release GPL code these days; only the RISC OS project and it’s user-base stands to loose out if the licensing restricts contributions. Not the other way around.

Back to my 80/20 comments: concentrate now on what you can change now.

Well if I can convince even 1 or 2 other people who may or may not be vocal in this forum to think a little differently then I have made a change. Perhaps not, but it’s my time, so I’ll spend it as I see fit :) Projects aren’t just about code.

Bear in mind that you have 100% control on your choice of licence and set that against how much control you have over the actions of a set of people who include people who are difficult to contact never mind persuade to open things up.

What’s the fun in doing easy stuff?

If the latter was easy the whole source would already be available and open.

..and if you follow your own advice RISC OS will never be truly available and open; Just think how much better RISC OS would be if you could build on and use all that GPL code available from the thousands of projects on the web and how much other projects could benefit from the RISC OS code too.

Anyway, I digress.

True, but it would also vanish if the rest of the code was GPL too,

Unlikely to ever happen in practice. Different code by different authors under different licences, all of which somehow manage to play nice with each other, so it pretty much a non-issue until the GPL gets involved.

there’s so much more in life to be happy about :)

Mmmm. Kittens. A day forecast to be cold and rainy but was horizon-to-horizon sunshine. Not at work today.

Yes; am I not allowed to discuss things in order to form a point of view?

I was not calling you on discussing things. I was calling you on “it has been stated that the IOMD ROM is the reason” – something you seem to have believed to have been the case.

Are you posting from China or something?

Should I go find an umbrella?

Freedom is important, and worth some sacrifices to maintain and support.

Indeed it is. I do not believe the GPL demonstrates freedom.

How about you? Ready to shift your opinions based on what you’ve read, learnt and debated with others? Or are you religious in your opinions?

If FSF comes along and states that the inclusion of GPL code within the RISC OS ROM image does not create problems for other code that it interacts with that is not licenced GPL and that the combination can be distributed without any GPL violations, then I will be happy to have a little more trust in the GPL.

I believe that someone who cannot afford to pay should have the same rights as I do despite their financial circumstances

….oh, this is all over life. Medical coverage (especially specialist things like dentistry), education, access to important career paths, the quality of the food eaten – people are continually judged by their finances and those with less are often neglected or ignored. Ask yourself if an average inner-city child to a poor family (ethnicity not necessarily relevant) is going to have anything anywhere near the same chances as the child of a well-off family? People have certain basic rights, but anything beyond that pretty much depends upon wealth. It might be a system that sucks, but given what we had before, it is a small improvement. One step at a time…

I have also got an ubuntu hat and backpack, many more Pi’s than I rightfully need, 2 Raspberry Pi t-shirts and a Babbage the bear teddybear. I’m also a member of the EFF.

I have an Acorn mug (somewhere) and a RiscPC sweatshirt. I’d like to get a Jaxa sweatshirt, but it looks like the best I’ll be able to do there is CafePress – ho hum.
Oh, I also have a Hello Kitty Nurse (Japan aid) – picture here: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7172/6556350213_8766a86f18.jpg

Nice, why not include a ‘your mama’ joke in there for good measure?

I’m not trying to be offensive, I’m pointing out that your interpretation of the GPL is yours.
Besides, I never got the point of “yo mama” jokes. If you want to insult somebody, why is it that much worse to say “yo mama is so <something bad> that she <something worse>”? To insult somebody by indirectly insulting them via somebody that isn’t even present is… extraordinarily lame.

Go back and read it one more time; it is talking about an application which has dependencies on closed-source DLLs. If I have a GPL RM (as a hypothetical example) and it is linked only with UnixLib; it can go in the ROM image.

Go back and note that I was not replying to you here, I was replying to “Separate files can be considered as separate projects. The same is true for an archive or an installer,”.

Anyway, I’m going to wind up for tonight. The Autumn animé season has finally started, so time to warm up VLC and see which first episodes are keepers and which are not.
[if anybody cares: http://www.heyrick.co.uk/blog/index.php?diary=20140824 bottom of the page]

It seems to me that any GPL modules just need to be in the HardDisc4 Modules directory rather than in the ROM itself. That way the ROM is not infected. I think this was done for the VCHIQ drivers for the Pi. If necessary a non-functional dummy module (i.e. not GPL licensed) could be in the ROM itself, with the later module version RMEnsured as required.

I only release GPL code these days; only the RISC OS project and it’s user-base stands to loose out if the licensing restricts contributions.

I see no reason for any loss: simply obey the GPL and don’t try and put your code where the GPL does not permit.

Well if I can convince even 1 or 2 other people who may or may not be vocal in this forum to think a little differently then I have made a change. Perhaps not, but it’s my time, so I’ll spend it as I see fit :)

“80/20”, “concentrate”. Those were the words/phrases/concepts.
In which mind set does “concentrate” equal “exclude all other” ?
In which mind set does “80% of your time and effort” equal “all” ? or alternately for the GPL acolyte view “I must only do the 20% because the 80% is too easy”

code available from the thousands of projects on the web

Not always a good thing: (Contract programmer put together “working”¹ code from snippets on the net and then departed with a CV containing a claim that 5 years worth of other peoples code was his, by the time our permanent guy had debugged the code² he had removed virtually all the web derived code and all the “sticking plaster” used to bolt it together.)

..and if you follow your own advice RISC OS will never be truly available and open; Just think how much better RISC OS would be if you could build on and use all that GPL code available from the thousands of projects on the web and how much other projects could benefit from the RISC OS code too.

Someone said “What’s the fun in doing easy stuff?” :)
No, being serious we’re back to the 80/20 philosophy and the patience hints. In many cases things I have achieved took a while to mature. Instant success is rare.
Pebbles in a pond, get the ripples right and very little effort translates to a big effect. However big waves can destroy everything.

BTW. Loose = slack, lose = the act of losing such that the item is lost. (My weakness is the i before e except when it isn’t stuff)

¹ Using a loose definition of the word.
² Some of the bugs were so obvious I spotted them. Yes that obvious

It seems to me that any GPL modules just need to be in the HardDisc4 Modules directory rather than in the ROM itself.

I’ve forgotten how many times we’ve collectively made that point. Of course for purist GPL I suspect the other elements using the components sitting in the HardDisc distribution might need to be elsewhere.

I keep seeing prose like ‘acolyte’, ‘infect’, ‘purist’: some of you chaps have obviously missed a career as spin-doctors. The GPL is a license; last time I checked it didn’t have tentacles or any form of bestial components nor was it designed for monks or was it some form of disease.

Not always a good thing: (Contract programmer put together “working”1 code from snippets on the net and then departed with a CV containing a claim that 5 years worth of other peoples code was his, by the time our permanent guy had debugged the code2 he had removed virtually all the web derived code and all the “sticking plaster” used to bolt it together.)

Again, there you go, thinking of RISC OS as some valuable commercial project which needs such protection. It doesn’t; get over it. If a RISC OS module was built of GPL code snippets then great; sure would save some time over re-inventing the wheel. As free advice to the company to which you refer I would suggest peer code review as a good technique to employ; bad programmers are bad programmers – nothing to do with GPL or any other license.

No, being serious we’re back to the 80/20 philosophy and the patience hints. In many cases things I have achieved took a while to mature. Instant success is rare.

RISC OS hasn’t been open-source for over 25 years and still isn’t; How much patience are you expecting?

Loose = slack, lose = the act of losing such that the item is lost.

Seriously? Correcting grammar in a computing forum will really eat your time; head over to YouTube, the comments section would keep you busy all day :)

Nope. Read this http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL – it says that you cannot distribute compiled closed-source DLLs along with a GPL program (at all). So you can link to, say, the VisualBasic RunTime, but you cannot include it in your installer as it is non-free.

That’s not always true. See BeOS: not an open source OS, but delivered with GPL tools, in zip, installer or CD-Rom. I think the FAQ goes a bit too far here. Other example: I make a closed source tool, that relies on an open source component (for example a frontend for wget). It’s perfectly legal, if I deliver the source code of wget.

Now, where is the limit between a package and the project… That’s the point.

x