GPL in ROM

Don’t. You’ll lose the will in about thirty seconds. YouTube comments, even after Google’s “real names” policy, still manages to rival Facebook for dross.

Both are about as likely as me nailing my genitalia to a plank. Since I’ve no tolerance for pain and no inclination toward self mutilation you now have a list of three things I won’t do.

Missed this from Simon earlier:

As free advice to the company to which you refer I would suggest peer code review as a good technique to employ;

Free is always handy, particularly to a sub-section of one of the UK’s biggest employers (the biggest? dunno)

Some people must be kinda stupid if they think a bunch of people arguing on-line can be interpreted as actual legal advice

Hmm, quote from a guy I know “you have no idea how dumb people in middle america can be” – where’s he from? Minnesota. I guess he might have formed an opinion. Since all the others I’ve actually met are East or West coast rather than “flyover zone” I’m not qualified.

Clearly analogies are as useful as irony around here.

Not with me, it’s just that some of my answers are obtuse. Bull, sheep = food.

I certainly wouldn’t object to snippets of my code being used (or the whole thing) in other GPL applications, since that adds and extends the usefulness to even more people.

That’s handy because since you wrote them under GPL they aren’t likely to be used anywhere else certainly not in anything with a non-GPL target. Stuff under CDDL however could end up in various places.

The area occupied by GPL is big, enormous even, but it has walls and one way gates. Are you sure you’re free? Or have you not travelled far enough?
Are you going to quote numbers or did that happen already?

@Simon

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).

Could you please cite the part of the Castle licence that denies you the right to fork RISC OS?

@Simon

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

There are thousands of projects around with licences compatible with RISC OS. Yet, RISC OS only uses a small fraction of it. Realistically, it is a manpower thing, not a licencing thing. Unless you think that being GPL-licenced makes the code somewhat superior.

and how much other projects could benefit from the RISC OS code too.

I think somewhere in a previous thread you placed the “commercial value” of RISC OS at 0 UKP. Starting from that assumption, it is hard to see how worthless code could help other projects.

The area occupied by GPL is big, enormous even, but it has walls and one way gates. Are you sure you’re free? Or have you not travelled far enough?

Yes, it has one way gates. Once you provide freedoms with your source using the GPL you can be sure (as far as possible under the current laws) that it will remain available with those freedoms and that everyone can have the same freedom to use it; no one who uses it has more or less rights than anyone else.

Could you please cite the part of the Castle licence that denies you the right to fork RISC OS?

It doesn’t specifically prevent forking; it just makes forking meaningless – A fork would be meaningless since Castle would still own the shared-source license code and the clause about applying it to derivative code would still be there.

For a fork to have meaning the underlying licensing would need to provide the same rights to all parties, otherwise the ball-and-chain remains in place.

The CDDL is not the same thing as a GPL; the CDDL combined with the Castle license provides Castle with the right to combine my code with theirs and sell it without payment to me; However if I do the exactly the same thing I have to pay them. Therefore CDDL (and any license which gives Castle an important right which I don’t have) is not something I would consider even if I have no commercial interest in RISC OS.

Unless you think that being GPL-licenced makes the code somewhat superior.

Not superior; I think you missed my point here. Seems that there is NetBSD code floating around in RISC OS right? So there is obviously something to be gained from other OS projects. With GPL you could gain from Linux too as well as a number of other large projects. I think you’ll find something of value in such code. The GPL means that you have to do it fairly; i.e. providing others with the same rights that you got from using GPL software.

Right now, no matter what you do to it and no matter how hard you work it will still belong to Castle.

It doesn’t specifically prevent forking; it just makes forking meaningless – A fork would be meaningless since Castle would still own the shared-source license code and the clause about applying it to derivative code would still be there.

Very funny. Don’t forget that you can do what you want, but Linux will always be the property of Linus Torvalds :)
(look at copyright)

I understand what you want to say, but this is not the right argument.

and the clause about applying it to derivative code would still be there.

Oooo, pot kettle.

GPL.

The CDDL is not the same thing as a GPL;

Yes, we know. That’s spectacularly important if you want your code available without people putting conditions on how you use it even if you aren’t charging for the product.

Therefore CDDL (and any license which gives Castle an important right which I don’t have) is not something I would consider even if I have no commercial interest in RISC OS.

CDDL (as one specific non-GPL) allows the author to gift the right to use it to another, the GPL insists that for a small “gift” the recipient has to “gift” all their code back irrespective of it’s current legal status.

It’s a “here have a free watch. BTW I now own all the rights to your house, contents, car and family”

Yes GPL places restrictions on what you can do with the code. The point is the restrictions are even to all involved as are the rights and freedoms provided.

Using CDDL with the Castle shared source license does not provide this. Castle keeps the rights they want (including the right to use your code) and do not reciprocate such rights to you. Exactly what the GPL is designed to prevent.

It’s a “here have a free watch. BTW I now own all the rights to your house, contents, car and family”

More like “Here is my free code for you to use; in return I would like the same rights from you” – this is called fairness. It does not extend out infinitely as you would like people to think; it’s limited to the code involved.

With CDDL and the Castle license it’s more like “You: I invented a better watch strap! Castle: Thanks, that’s now ours to sell, oh and btw you are specifically denied the right we have assigned ourself”. True, everyone now has a better watch-strap, but when combined with a watch it’s property of Castle. – Even better, if you do want to sell your new watch strap you have to pay Castle to let you do it.

If stretched analogies are your bag; well that should make you happy?

x

…and if RISC OS was open-source you could both alter the OS and add your own stuff and everyone would have the same rights on the result. Using CDDL for RISC OS is just supporting Castle’s unfair licensing arrangement. If the OS was CDDL too this would be less of an issue, but since it isn’t, using CDDL is just a way of agreeing to an unfair situation and perpetuating it (rather than actually remedying it). Furthermore CDDL only helps if you don’t need to alter anything covered only by the Castle shared-source license; in those cases you have to give up all rights and lock your code into Castle’s IPR. Even less fair.

You can come up with all the analogies you like until your blue in the face; but it doesn’t alter the facts.

Well this is just going to go around and around forever.
look the way i see it simon if you don’t want to contribute to risc os why are you here ???
i cannot wait to see this ground breaking piece of code that is going to make Risc os & castle the next microsoft,
give us all a break and go and troll somewhere else or put you code where your mouth is.

Thanks for that Rob – let me know where you live and I’ll post you a lollipop; The whole point of this is I do want to contribute. This thread was started to discuss the manner in which GPL code could be used with RISC OS. Do I think I’m going to go ‘maverick’ and change the face of RISC OS? – well, no, I’m not that vain. I’ve produced lots of open-source code in the past and I continue to do so, so I’m not sure why I need to prove my ability to program to you or any one else.

Lot’s of people seem to like to use the expression ‘troll’ on this forum, I’m starting to think it’s a specific RISC OS term for “does not agree with me” – if you want to see good examples of arguments designed just to cause flaming feel free to scroll up and read – you can ignore anything I wrote – there’s plenty of other posts which meet your requirements. So I’ll stick to my comments in the post above and ignore your attempt to troll.

You: I invented a better watch strap! Castle: Thanks, that’s now ours to sell, oh and btw you are specifically denied the right we have assigned ourself

And another mistake. That’s always the case, even with GPL. If I want to republish my GPL code as closed source, I can. Other people can’t. So I specifically denied the right I have assigned myself. The owner has all the rights: to switch to GPL or to leave GPL; to apply a dual license (as Castle); etc.

The real point is that CDDL does not permit to sell RISC OS; GPL does. Nothing else. In both cases, the owner of the code has rights you’ll never have.

x

Did you expect me to have an epiphany since the 19th? Although I am glad that since then you’ve got to know me so well you can predict what I will do in the future. Quite a trick (especially whilst on holiday). The other thread and this combined have had over 4000 views, so I’m guessing that the subject is of some interest to people on the forum (or perhaps people are bored and I provide some form of entertainment?). No one forces anyone to either read nor reply to either thread.

This is the Internet, if something so offends you then you are quite welcome not to read it.

Right now I have another project which I’m committed to finish but after that who knows? Perhaps I will use this shiny new Pandaboard next to me to dig into some code. I shall leave it to you and your clairvoyant skills to predict.

Simon

The point is, things aren’t going to change. Castle won’t give up their rights, ROOL most certainly have better things to do (you do realize “ROOL” is actually two blokes with a day job, don’t you?) and the community couldn’t care less.
Heck half of them happily run RISC OS 6 which is completely closed source! There are about 10 developers and less than 2000 users worldwide. Do you really think investing several years in re-writing RISC OS would benefit the community?

At three in the morning a luke warm beer on your desk is way better than an ice cold six pack in your neighbour’s fridge.

You might find this of interest:

Abstract: Every open source project needs to decide on an open source license. This decision is of high economic relevance: Just which license is the best one to help the project grow and attract a community? The most common question is: Should the project choose a restrictive (reciprocal) license or a more permissive one? As an important step towards answering this question, this paper analyses actual license choice and correlated project growth from ten years of open source projects. It provides closed analytical models and finds that around 2001 a reversal in license choice occurred from restrictive towards permissive licenses.

http://dirkriehle.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/oss2013.hofmann.pdf

I get that Patric; but there are ways to get beyond 20 devs and 2000 users and I personally think a more inclusive attitude would be one of them (and here I’m talking about ideas and discussions not just licensing (before I get flamed again for thinking a little differently)).

Do you really think investing several years in re-writing RISC OS would benefit the community?

I’m probably going to have to change my address for saying this but: Yes I do.
(However I would use the word ‘improving’. Why just replace? Not much fun in that)

I shall take a look at your link although I suspect it refers to projects moving from one open-source license to another rather than the situation RISC OS Open is in (since the Castle license isn’t open-source).

But, I get it – I’m a lone voice in the wilderness. Shame though. I shall give Colin his wish and stop posting about it.

Quite a trick (especially whilst on holiday).

Hmmm, try going through the threads involving people like Raik – he regularly posts from his home built setup while on holiday. Don’t think his posted from the beach yet, but I can’t be sure. Depends on what his S.O. let’s him do.

Did you expect me to have an epiphany since the 19th?

Option 1 “Can you get those on the NHS? what’s the post-op recovery period?”
Option 2 “We have two Popes, the second coming may be due so a few miracles as fallout isn’t unlikely”
Oh, sorry you signed up to the other team? :o)

perhaps people are bored and I provide some form of entertainment?

114 posts to this thread, and however many to the other. Hmmm, speed, uptake…

Worry not, I’ll be in bed soon – got a network change to make at 5am

bq, At three in the morning a luke warm beer on your desk is way better than an ice cold six pack in your neighbour’s fridge.

Patric – ice cold beer is only ever ice cold because it’s poor quality and the low temperature hides the naff flavours. 12C keeping, 13C serving is probably a better idea if you have quality beer.

Ice cold beer is only ever ice cold because it’s poor quality and the low temperature hides the naff flavours. 12C keeping, 13C serving is probably a better idea if you have quality beer.

Well, I do get the whole Real Ale™ idea, which of course is deeply encoded in the British psyche (together with that other famous hobby, change-ringing) but you do risk sounding like the fantastic Mr Fox:

The fox who longed for grapes, beholds with pain
The tempting clusters were too high to gain;
Grieved in his heart he forced a careless smile,
And cried ,‘They’re sharp and hardly worth my while.’

@ Steve:

now have a list of three things I won’t do.

Does this imply you’d try everything else? ;-)

Free is always handy,

Free is handy as long as it is free. When it is something else passing itself off as free, it can be one of the most destructive forces around. It is up to YOU to audit YOUR code, and failures are YOUR responsibility.

But, then, if the person referred was really that lame, maybe passing off somebody else’s code was a safer bet than him actually writing some of his own.

“you have no idea how dumb people in middle america can be”

While I have zero experience of middle-Americans (is that like middle-Earthers?), I feel I ought to point to this wiki link as an example of absolute mind-bending crowning stupidity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

@ Simon:

Once you provide freedoms with your source using the GPL you can be sure (as far as possible under the current laws) that it will remain available with those freedoms and that everyone can have the same freedom to use it;

Yeah, you know Simon, we’re not arguing that. We get what the point of a “free” licence is. What we are arguing is something I have mentioned before that you seem to keep glossing over, and something that others have made some OTT analogies regarding.

Allow me to quote myself: If I take your code (obviously GPL, right?) and put some sort of wrapper around it, it is still fundamentally your code. International copyright law would see that as a “derivative work”, and in keeping with the licence of your code, the result would be required to be GPL.
If I take different parts of your code and combine them to form something else, it is still a derivative work because it is not my code I am playing around with. The end result? GPL again.
However, if I write something of my own, then this is my code. I can licence it as I please, GPL, EUPL, closed or free-for-all.
[…]
The question of linkage is utterly irrelevant. My code does not become your code simply by proximity or the fact that it may or may not extend existing functionality and may or may not be linked this way or that way.
This is what the GPL attempts to do, and this is the problem with it.

The problem with the GPL is, essentially, twofold:

1. It co-exists only with itself. Other open source licences (EUPL, Apache3) have had to insert clauses permitting relicencing as GPL in order to satisfy the GPL.
2. It, by an extremely twisted (and potentially unlawful) definition of “derivative” attempts to apply itself to code that it has no rights touching.

that everyone can have the same freedom to use it

Actually, that is incorrect. If somebody takes my code, licenced EUPL, and combines it with a GPL (v2) project, the code will become GPL. It is not possible to then take any of the code from that project and use it back in an EUPL (or other OSI compliant) project. It, by definition, remains within the GPL world.

To use a meme: All your base are belong to us.

It doesn’t specifically prevent forking; it just makes forking meaningless – A fork would be meaningless since Castle would still own the shared-source license code and the clause about applying it to derivative code would still be there.

It depends on the conditions. If Castle was going to take the code in a direction that was considered bad, or was going to revise their licence in a less open way, any one of us could download the last CVS archive with the current licences, and continue to use it according to said licences. Castle modifying their licence on their copy would not affect the fork.
This paragraph sounds negative, and rightly so. It seems to me that forks usually happen when groups of people fall out with each other and/or the direction the project is going in. Tell me – what’s OpenOffice called today?

The CDDL is not the same thing as a GPL; the CDDL combined with the Castle license provides Castle with the right to combine my code with theirs and sell it without payment to me; However if I do the exactly the same thing I have to pay them.

Firstly, this is exactly how relevant? You’ve already stated that you believe RISC OS to have no commercial value.

Secondly, do you think you get paid for all of the embedded devices that run Linux code? Do you have any idea of how many nerds have hooked 3.3V serial to their routers and such and booted to a shell with BusyBox? Some manufacturers have shared, some manufacturers have been shouted at by FSF, some <cough>East of here</cough> just ignore the GPL and use the code regardless.
The GPL provides no guarantee that you’ll get paid, it just means that you can sell (but being a more ethical bloke you’ll share the code, right?). Let me know how it works out for you, to sell something that people can otherwise obtain for free…

The GPL means that you have to do it fairly; i.e. providing others with the same rights that you got from using GPL software.

If the GPL code is happy to co-exist with everything else and GPL bits stay GPL, then fine.

Castle keeps the rights they want (including the right to use your code) and do not reciprocate such rights to you.

? 1.1 Subject to the restrictions set out in the remainder of this Licence Castle hereby grants to You a non-exclusive royalty free worldwide licence to use, copy and distribute the RISC OS source code and object code in any medium PROVIDED THAT you ensure that each copy You distribute incorporates the text of, or an Internet link to, this Licence.

I think what you meant to say was that Castle retain the right to sell the code, but don’t reciprocate that right to us.

It does not extend out infinitely as you would like people to think; it’s limited to the code involved.

Define “involved”.

It is well known that the Linux kernel people (especially Linus himself) consider that kernel modules are derived from the kernel itself.
To put that into context, a company could make a whizzy piece of hardware and write a proprietary kernel module (using the documented API) to interact with it. By their definition, this kernel module is to be considered a derivation of the kernel itself, despite the fact that it contains no kernel code. Perhaps the only reason that the developers permit this without trying to enforce it is that even attempting to enforce this (regardless of whether or not it gets laughed out of court) would kill Linux stone dead. Proprietary modules are common currency with multimedia hardware, video cards, etc. The companies invest a lot of R&D and want to keep their secrets to themselves. I don’t necessarily agree with this, but I can understand the reasoning.
Instead, the kernel is happier to mark itself as “tainted” (there’s a delightful word laden with negative connotations) if a non-GPL module is loaded, and would go as far as to behave slightly differently to GPL and non-GPL modules.

With CDDL and the Castle license it’s more like

Actually, it is the Castle licence that grants them the rights to sell. If your code is in there as CDDL, there is nothing stopping you pulling it out and using it in a product that you yourself can sell. You just can’t include the rest of RISC OS with it.
To put this into context, you could write a nice disc integrity scanner that can fix basic problems (like the cause of the various Bad Map errors). You can licence it CDDL. You can provide a copy to ROOL who think “great, we’ll put this into the ROM as it is really useful”. [and, yes, Castle can sell it]
You can then take that exact same code and plug it into a more fully-fledged repair tool that can deal with fringe cases less common to occur, map rebuilding, restoration of the FAT partition, blah blah, whatever. And you can then sell that yourself. Castle can’t stop you. It is independent of their licence and it doesn’t contain RISC OS inside it.

The CDDL gives ROOL permission to combine your code with the existing code to form the final ROM image. It doesn’t give anybody the right to deny you the use of your own code, even commercially. In fact, if somebody else decides to take your code and expand upon it for – say, direct editing of partition tables – then that code would be CDDL and would be fed back into the codebase which you could then use yourself.

Using CDDL for RISC OS is just supporting Castle’s unfair licensing arrangement.

CDDL is not a sticking plaster for things that you see lacking in Castle’s licence, CDDL is a free and open licence that some people have chosen to use which is compatible with the other licences in the codebase. The reason we point you to the CDDL is that it is closer in spirit to the GPL than the “whatever, I don’t care, just say Hi! to the Regents of California” approach of the bsd licence.

[aside: what the hell is a Regent anyway? brings to mind a surfer dude with a big sword]

(rather than actually remedying it)

Seems that it is mostly only you that is aggrieved by this. Maybe you want to sell something using RISC OS and you don’t want to pay for licences? I dunno, I download, I hack, I build my ROMs, and the licence is just a boring bit of legalese like all the others, INCLUDING THE SHOUTY-SHOUTY PARAGRAPH AT THE END. I never understood why licences write the point that they consider is the most important IN THE WAY THAT IS THE MOST DIFFICULT TO READ.
Children are generally taught lowercase letters first (look at all these messages, look in any magazine or book – what do you see more of?) and this is what is used the majority of the time. If you have a stopwatch, read a few lines of the normal part of the Castle licence and time yourself. Now read the same number of lines of the shouty part and time yourself. It’s an impediment to write it like that, but they often do. Especially Microsoft who can shouty-shouty for screenfuls (and switch languages to cater for French Canadians).

The whole point of this is I do want to contribute.

You want to contribute on your terms, and those alone.

It’s quite simple really. If I wanted to contribute to a GPL project, I would have to licence my code as GPL (if I added to something already existing, I would have no choice).

You want to contribute to RISC OS? Pick the licence of your choice that fits in with that which is applied to the various parts of RISC OS. Which is pretty much any OSI-style licence happy to keep itself to itself.

so I’m not sure why I need to prove my ability to program to you or any one else.

I don’t think he’s saying “prove you can code”, I think he’s saying “contribute or don’t, just stop creating obstacles”.

I’m starting to think it’s a specific RISC OS term for “does not agree with me”

No, it might be a specific RISC OS term for “does not get the point after being told repeatedly”.

The other thread and this combined have had over 4000 views

There’s nothing good on TV these days…

This is the Internet, if something so offends you then you are quite welcome not to read it.

Hahahaha! What are you, like, twelve?

“This is the Internet, if something so offends you then you should bitch about it forever.”

FTFY.

Perhaps I will use this shiny new Pandaboard next to me to dig into some code. I shall leave it to you and your clairvoyant skills to predict.

Don’t need a crystal ball for that. What’s the point of shiny-shiny if you don’t plan to use it?

@ patric:

There are about 10 developers and less than 2000 users worldwide.

Wah! But I feel obliged to point out that half of those ten developers are Jeffrey’s pseudos. ;-)

At three in the morning a luke warm beer on your desk is way better than an ice cold six pack in your neighbour’s fridge.

Perhaps the most intelligent thing that’s been said in this entire thread.

and the final quote is Simon:

I’m probably going to have to change my address for saying this but: Yes I do.
(However I would use the word ‘improving’. Why just replace? Not much fun in that)

There may be some value is rewriting parts of RISC OS. Some have considered the idea of writing the Wimp in C (yikes!) while Jeffrey has laid out plans for ripping the kernel apart for a better separation of its components – sadly akin to what ROLtd has already done, but that’s closed source.

Changing for the sake of improvement? That’s a good thing.
Changing for the sake of a licence? Not so much.

The solution is quite simple (and has been stated here several times). If a GPL-licensed module is needed in the ROM, it just needs to be assembled so that it is not statically linked. If you want an even more hands off approach, then just RMLoad it from the HardDisc4 image. Even the most insane GPL advocate would not be foolish enough to claim that this means the ROM (a completely separate piece of software) is somehow brought within the fold of GPL!

Children are generally taught lowercase letters first

People read shapes and letters. You don’t actually have to have all the right letters or in the right order as long as the shape is almost right and the matching word shape is expected in the context. You can even leave out words and people will still “see” them in the sentence they read.

There’s nothing good on TV these days…

Cat behaviour program right now (paused before bed, silly boy)

Well, I do get the whole Real Ale™ idea, which of course is deeply encoded in the British psyche (together with that other famous hobby, change-ringing) but you do risk sounding like the fantastic Mr Fox:

In 1980, when I joined, CAMRA was a smallish band of complainers who had good fun at beer festivals they organised. The brewing situation in the UK was dire with 6 big mega companies, a small group of mid-size regional brewers and just over a dozen small (back of pub size breweries). Pubs with Real Ale were the minority. BTW. Although CAMRA coined the term “Real Ale” as well as writing the dictionary definition¹ I don’t think we trade marked it² and prior use stops anyone else. Free to use folks, but it has to match the dictionary definition.

In 2014 CAMRA is labelled as the most successful consumer organisation in Europe and has over 160,000 fully paid up members who have over the years changed things such that almost every pub has Real Ale, and there are so many breweries that there are more than any other country in Europe.
As a spin-off our visiting enthusiasts have now created a brewing culture in Italy such that they have five times more breweries now than the UK had when I joined.

Don’t know why I waste my time really. :o)

So, that was an explanation another of my leisure interests for Patric and an explanation of patience for Simon. Although 34 years of patience may be a bit much for an RMS acolyte.

Changing for the sake of improvement? That’s a good thing.

Like changing the code for the IOMD image for something applicable to just the Risc PC.
To make a 32 bit compatible second processor card support application easier to produce.
Now 32 bit supported Gemini card might not be something everyone wants although running Windows 95 could attract some who are still clinging to the 26 bit world.

¹ We had a lot of publicans “Real Ale”? of course it’s real, you aren’t imagining it. Write a definition, take them a dictionary and then stare at them. :)

² “CAMRA” is registered.

People read shapes and letters. You don’t actually have to have all the right letters or in the right order as long as the shape is almost right and the matching word shape is expected in the context. You can even leave out words and people will still “see” them in the sentence they read.

As it tnurs out, plpeoe can raed sncetenes flariy wlel with the mlidde leretts of a wrod mexid up, the mian rnemeriquet is that the frist and lsat leettrs are cecorrt.
Our bairns are institereng thnigs.

[apologies to non-native English speakers, this may be more challenging for you]

Now 32 bit supported Gemini card might not be something everyone wants although running Windows 95 could attract some who are still clinging to the 26 bit world.

What’s the bigger “Ohmigod” here? A 32bit PC card, or Win95 still kicking?

What’s the bigger “Ohmigod” here? A 32bit PC card, or Win95 still kicking?

Well, for me it would be “Ohmigod I twiddled with the source and it actually compiles”¹. Bonus points when it works²

WRT Win95, twitching is probably more accurate. Anyone ever tried XP on the card? (no, no, stop with the hilarity Steve, you’ll kill someone)

Yes, back awake. Bed, back up when the main router went pop at 02:15, workaround in place, parts due in later. Did the other planned change in about 20 minutes. Could have been faster but it was a show and tell for the newbie as well. Popped home for a bite to eat, freshen up etc
My eyes itch.

¹ So far so good. :0
² Amazing, so far so good

WRT Win95, twitching is probably more accurate. Anyone ever tried XP on the card? (no, no, stop with the hilarity Steve, you’ll kill someone)

I remember long discussions on Usenet about the PC card and that it was not really a PC card but more a “DOS and Windows 3.1 and partly Windows 95” card. Although there was a seriously patched Linux version around that kind-of-worked. I guess the desire to run other OSes vanished because of the memory limit of existing PC cards and the lack of available CPU power. Can’t imagine XP running on a 32 MB emulated machine…maybe it would be a challenge to make the software compatible with OS/2 Warp though :-)