Any updates about RiscOS on the Raspberry Pi?

As Martin and Steve have already made it very clear that “free to download” does not equal “free to distribute” I’ll focus on another misconception.

This is the fact that a licence is there to give you rights not to take them away. If a licence doesn’t state that you have a particular right then you do not have that right. The ultimate upshot of this is: no licence == no rights.

I’m afraid not: profit has nothing to do with it.

Actually, it does. If it’s for profit then it’s not only a copyright violation but also an economic crime.

If you don’t make contact, then I’ll need to more generally consider the wider availability of my software.

Well, I objected 2 weeks ago but so far no attempt has been to try and sort this out. Instead all I’ve seen here is people suggesting ways to get round the problem rather than trying to resolve it.

As such I’m already reconsidering StrongED licensing, most likely I’ll go down the GPL route (but lots to think about; StrongHelp, StrongMen, StrongLib and the StrongED modes).

I thought that RISC OS on the Raspberry Pi was a ROOL project.

They seem to be in two minds over this. On the one hand there’s Steve, in the other thread, saying that this distro is not endorsed by ROOL while in the same thread Ben states that they have a veto on what goes into the distro, implying that they are in control. Some clarification would be helpful here.

My understanding is that if there is no profit element then there is no claim for harm so there is nothing to pursue. The software has, after all, been put on the internet with the express intention of allowing users to download it. All I am doing is acting as their agent and collecting it in a single place. I think this is a lot of fuss about nothing.

Clearly if this is to be a commercial product then all the loose ends need tying up…

s such I’m already reconsidering StrongED licensing, most likely I’ll go down the GPL route

That would solve the problem as it would then be distributable along with any sources that are provided.

Hi. The history of trying to contact authors goes back some months. Theo and I started setting up a means to do so, and there are unfortunately still a number of permissions outstanding. Sincere apologies for this, but it was kind-of hoped that the sending of emails/forwarding of responses would be shared out between other community members wanting to help.

I’m away at the moment but will gather some facts and post again when I can.

Fred, Steve and others – my understanding is that Chris’s distro is by no means the final ROOL distro. IIRC it was initially noted as not being endorsed because the RPi development ROM was pre-alpha. Then ISTR the principle of providing a one-stop image (incorporating the video tweaks) was stated to be worthwhile. I doubt very much that ROOL staff have even found the time to download Chris’s distro and see exactly what it does, let alone check the individual licence conditions. (I think this is one reason why Chris has provided an online version of the welcome text, for those who’ve not downloaded the image itself to be able to easily make informed comments.)

I’d like to take this opportunity to apologise for the shortcomings in the process for officially contacting authors. Thanks, and sorry again.

My understanding is that if there is no profit element then there is no claim for harm so there is nothing to pursue.

Are you willing to test this?
For sure Steve (etc) can’t go after “losses” equal to the Greek deficit, nor can claim for somebody selling their stuff for profit. But these are economic damages.
What is clear is the licence says “don’t” and the distro “does”, it is a pretty clear case of copyright infringement…
…which can carry fines and other penalties (though the British response is on a per-case basis so I can’t give any hard guidelines). I should also mention that it is feasible at this time (as both the authors of PrintPDF and StrongEd have raised objections, yet their software seems to included still) for either of them (or an agent acting on their behalf) to contact your service provider to get your site taken offline. It is a little harder than the US DMCA, but not impossible.
And nobody is going to be interested in the “alpha” status, as it will boil down to “is intellectual property being distributed in contravention of its licence?” Answer = Yes.

Others have said – and it is good advice – remove from your distro everything where you absolutely do not have the right to distribution (if unsure about something, remove it). Then work through product by product, package by package contacting authors and seeking permission. Some may refuse (and you can’t argue, they don’t need to give a reason), but I think the majority of contemporary RISC OS software authors would see it as a Good Thing to get their product noticed in this potential rebirth of the platform. I only wish I had something worth including…

My understanding is that if there is no profit element then there is no claim for harm so there is nothing to pursue.

I don’t think you’ll find that’s true. It might make legal proceedings much less worthwhile, but it doesn’t mean that you’re suddenly in the right. You could also argue that CDs are inherently cheap, so copying music discs isn’t a problem.

All it means is that copyright holders will look elsewhere for a solution. You have still broken the license.

Like Fred, I had been looking at a long-term goal of releasing my software under the GPL. To achieve that, I had been slowly refactoring the source code from the older stuff as time allowed, to get it into a format that I was happy to release to the world (the very early code clearly shows the ‘evolution’ of my C programming style). That’s what the test builds on my site have been about in the main. All your behaviour has done is to make me consider whether my software should be available at all, if organizations like RISC OS Open Ltd are just going to abuse the license terms in the way that you/they have.

The software has, after all, been put on the internet with the express intention of allowing users to download it.

Correct. The license included inside the download explains on what terms it has been made available. Third party distribution is not an option under that license.

However, as Fred also rightly points out, the existence of that license doesn’t prevent others from being handed out. I’m more than happy for my software to be distributed by third parties, as long as they ask for permission first; in fact, I’d still very much like PrintPDF to be in the Raspberry Pi distribution — as long as you and ROOL follow the correct process. There’s a very good, practical reason for this: as you still seem to have failed to pick up on, PrintPDF 0.87 is very likely to contain library code that isn’t compatible with the new hardware. If you’d contacted me to ask for permission, I could have told you this and built 0.88 from libraries that are safe.

All I am doing is acting as their agent and collecting it in a single place.

Can you remind me when I appointed you as my agent? That must be another email exchange that I have forgotten all about.

I think this is a lot of fuss about nothing.

It’s a fuss that could be resolved very quickly indeed, and in a way that means you just have to replace your copy of PrintPDF with a Raspberry Pi-friendly version, if you stop arguing the toss here in the forum and email me as I asked you to last night.

Also, please clarify: do RISC OS Open Ltd think that this is a “lot of fuss about nothing”?

[ETA: I might have answered my own question: according to this post “Chris’ work is supported by ROOL”.]

I’d like to take this opportunity to apologise for the shortcomings in the process for officially contacting authors. Thanks, and sorry again.

Thanks, Trevor, but that’s utterly worthless if Chris is going to continue claiming that he can’t see anything wrong with his actions.

Some may refuse (and you can’t argue, they don’t need to give a reason), but I think the majority of contemporary RISC OS software authors would see it as a Good Thing to get their product noticed in this potential rebirth of the platform.

Precisely. The really stupid thing here is that if Chris had just followed the licenses, there would have been none of this argument and the distro would contain the software he wants. I also want PrintPDF included, but I can’t just ignore the license breach as that sets an awkward precedent if someone else does something similar but less desirable in the future.

I can’t see how it helps anyone to bundle a potentially incompatible version of PrintPDF on the Raspberry Pi, either. Especially as a compatible one is just an email away.

Chris I understand that you feel you are acting with good intentions. However you cannot treat other people’s work in such a cavalier manner. Look at the ill feeling that is being generated! That is something the platform can well do without.If you can’t be responsible then I firmly believe that ROOL should disassociate itself from your distro for the general good.

Like Fred, I had been looking at a long-term goal of releasing my software under the GPL.

Given the issues and self-compatible nature of the GPL, could I ask you to consider releasing your software under the EUPL?

http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Doc027f.pdf?id=31096

That’s all, I’m just going to ask…

To achieve that, I had been slowly refactoring the source code from the older stuff as time allowed, to get it into a format that I was happy to release to the world

It isn’t just “the code gets better” or “omfg hairy use of pointers”, but you also need to read through all of the comments to sanitise stuff like “bang the interrupt ‘cos [name] is a [expletive] and can’t design hardware worth [expletive]”. Then you come across those functions that you wrote after six coffees that do the job well, but you’ll be damned if you can figure out how with tightly packed code, single letter variables, lots of use of the comma operator, and not one single comment to be found.
Yeah, getting software ready for the world is hard work.

All your behaviour has done is to make me consider whether my software should be available at all,

This is exactly it. Is this a result that benefits anybody?

if organizations like RISC OS Open Ltd are just going to abuse the license terms in the way that you/they have.

Well, let’s get this clarified as well. I’m aware of a distro idea/outline on the wiki, and the one here seems to be on an external site. How “official” are these? (I am assuming that they’re two different things?)

And, to ask a stupid question… has [anything changed | permission been asked] since this morning? (come on, if not, why not?)

I have now improved the current alpha image by removing AWViewer, StrongEd, PrintPDF, Snapper and a few others. The users will have to download them themselves if they are clever enough to find them on the web. Those not able to do this can now go without.

I’m not sure that was exactly what the authors of the software had in mind.

The impression I get is that they would want their software included, but after the correct procedure was followed.

The main reason they are (rightly) being pedantic about this would seem to be that they wish to ensure that the correct version is included, so that it works, (and they don’t look stupid if it doesn’t and ending up supporting problems not of their making).

Letting this slide would also set a bad precedent, if someone whose motives weren’t for the good of the community tried to do something similar. (e.g. someone dodgy selling an emulator and bundling stuff without asking, “But he did it and you let him.”.)

I think their aim was for you to remove the packages with a view to putting the version they authorise back after the correct procedure is followed.

Your message comes across as though you taken it as complete refusal to allow their use.

(Though I still think the use of Packman could have made this issue irrelevant.)

Work is in hand on an ‘AppStore’ designed to get round the more tedious licensing issues. It is not an ideal solution as the new user is likely to try what is provided and if it doesn’t appeal to him, he’ll just try Linux. Someone started asking permissions months ago and this process seems to have petered out, not sure why.

I have now improved the current alpha image by removing AWViewer, StrongEd, PrintPDF, Snapper and a few others.

Was there any reason why, in the case of PrintPDF, you didn’t just email me to ask about the license? I have already stated that I am happy for it to be included, so long as you have followed the correct procedure to get my permission. Despite your many posts to this forum this morning, I have still not received an email from yourself or RISC OS Open Ltd about this (despite my also sending an email to ROOL this morning, asking for clarification of your status and their involvement with the RPi disc image).

Please send me an email asking for permission, then I’ll send you a Raspberry Pi-compatible version of PrintPDF for the image. At the moment, you’re behaving like a five-year-old who’s been caught doing something naughty. You made a mistake; accept it, then move on and sort it out like an adult.

Work is in hand on an ‘AppStore’ designed to get round the more tedious licensing issues. It is not an ideal solution as the new user is likely to try what is provided and if it doesn’t appeal to him, he’ll just try Linux.

Eh? What’s “tedious” about sending a quick email out? You can include PrintPDF if you get permission from me to distribute it. If you send me an email and ask for permission, I will give you permission. I don’t see any way in which that can require anything like an ‘AppStore’ to be in place.

Can I also remind you that you have still not resolved the fact that you have been distributing PrintPDF without permission (even though you have now stopped)? I want that resolving before the end of this weekend, and the only way that can happen is if you follow the license and email me.

Go on, just do it. It will sort both points out in one easy step.

Please send me an email asking for permission, then I’ll send you a Raspberry Pi-compatible version of PrintPDF for the image.

Steve,
I have to remove it from the distro first (now done) before seeking permission.

I didn’t want to be the one doing this, someone has gone before me and I do not know exactly who has said what in reply to any requests for permission already made. There is hardly time for me to start this process successfully as the deadline is 17th August.

I still feel that providing the software in a convenient form for the user to download is not ‘distribution’ – nothing is being sent out or sold, it is entirely a matter for the user to download or not. The law however is likely to be unhelpful whatever common sense might say so I’ll play safe – this will take time (which I don’t really have).

However if I do go round seeking permission I’ll try to do it in a single e-mail to all concerned explaining why we are doing what we are doing, what is the purpose and what are the constraints. I won’t be able to do this until later next week.

the fact that you have been distributing PrintPDF without permission

Not true – it has only been possible to download the alpha distro from a link on the ROOL site.

I didn’t want to be the one doing this, someone has gone before me and I do not know exactly who has said what in reply to any requests for permission already made.

No-one has contacted me about PrintPDF on RPi, ever.

There is hardly time for me to start this process successfully as the deadline is 17th August.

It can be sorted out this afternoon if you send me an email now instead of continuing to argue the toss here. You could have a compatible PrintPDF (0.88) in place for your disc image by the end of tomorrow, with full permission to distribute it.

I won’t be able to do this until later next week.

I have already made it clear that I want the previous transgression resolved by the end of this weekend: you don’t have until next week.

ETA: I should probably pick up on these other comments, too…

The law however is likely to be unhelpful whatever common sense might say so I’ll play safe – this will take time (which I don’t really have).

Common sense says that, like other developers, I want the widest possible usage of my software. As such, as long as I know where copies are being circulated, I’m happy for that to happen in most cases. All it needs is a quick email to ask for permission, and that permission will be granted (in a case like this).

The reason that I’m now digging my heels in is because of the discourtesy of your assuming that it was OK to include a copy without asking first.

the fact that you have been distributing PrintPDF without permission

Not true – it has only been possible to download the alpha distro from a link on the ROOL site.

I think you’ll find that’s known as “distribution”…

I’d like to take this opportunity to apologise for the shortcomings in the process for officially contacting authors. Thanks, and sorry again.

Thanks Trevor, but there’s no need for you to apologise. You and Theo did contact me and the only reason why permission wasn’t granted immediately is that Theo explained that the intention was to get the RO image distributed as part of an official, as endorsed by the foundation, RaspberryPi distro. (Don’t know if that’s still the case).

The terms under which this would be released would be set by the foundation and would likely include the following:

 - Allowed to redistribute through third parties.
 - Allowed to make changes, primarily for packaging.
 - Allowed to charge for it, media costs (possibly more).

Theo also felt that it would be unlikely that the RO image could impose more strict permissions for its distribution. What followed was a very constructive exchange with Theo that suddenly stopped, no-one’s fault really, it just did.

My understanding is that if there is no profit element then there is no claim for harm so there is nothing to pursue.

Incorrect, I’m afraid, you could still be sued for copyright infringement.

But suppose you’re right then why would anyone that released their work for free bother with a licence? Everyone is free to redistribute it anyway.

Also, it’s clear that Steve and myself are not happy with the current situation. Do you think it’s wise to keep rubbing some of the few remaining developers the wrong way? It’s not conducive to obtaining permission.

Don’t get me wrong I have no objection to StrongED (and my other software) to be included at all. RPi is a great project and it’s great to see that RISC OS runs on it (kudos to all involved!). Having been involved, as a volunteer, in helping people improve their computing skills, I’m very much aware of how little they know of how a computer actually works. One can only hope that the RPi succeeds in getting (young) people more into the tech side of things rather than being mere consumers!

What I do object to is the way this is being handled. No permission being sought, and when there are objections; lots of handwaving, it’s free so I’m free …, rather than trying to obtain permission. This is examplified by the latest knee-jerk reaction:

I have now improved the current alpha image by removing AWViewer, StrongEd, PrintPDF, Snapper and a few others.

Sigh, all it would have taken was an email.

I’m curious about how an App store could get around licensing issues, unless it is a !Rover type thing that goes and gets it from the website.

With anything that is packaged already on Riscpkg/Packman, there is a really simple solution; create a recommended apps package and have the programs you want as dependancies.

No-one has contacted me about PrintPDF on RPi, ever.

Sorry. Didn’t realise (I haven’t seen this correspondence). There is an email on its way to all concerned.

I’m curious about how an App store could get around licensing issues,

In principle it would simply present a list of useful free software – for each it would know the web link to the software and where to put the various components on the disc image and so (as far as the user is concerned) would just install the bits they wanted. It only ‘gets around’ the licensing restrictions by complying with them! It is just a more long winded experience for the end user.

It would be nice if such a thing could be combined with packman, so the end user sees as little difference as possible.

In reality it would be two systems with a single frontend.

P.S. I’m glad that whatever mis-communication happened appears to have been remidied, now.

Work is in hand on an ‘AppStore’ designed to get round the more tedious licensing issues.

Err… Isn’t that just a different distribution method?

You know, given some software releases (usu. beta/test stuff) tend to have “only from the author’s website” terms, any time you are dealing with other people’s software, you ought to be doing the tedious licensing issues…

Err… Isn’t that just a different distribution method?

Clearly not! If you present a list of web links for free software and the user clicks on one to download it and the software then opens it and installs it then even the most pedantic critic should find nothing to which he can take exception.

If you present a list of web links for free software and the user clicks on one to download it and the software then opens it and installs it

What you’re describing sounds a lot like RiscPkg. Would it not be easier and less wasteful of scarce resources to just use that?

then even the most pedantic critic should find nothing to which he can take exception.

Do you not think it might be time to stop being abusive towards our platform’s remaining developers? You got it wrong over the license issue, but we seemed to have moved on and resolved things. Sadly, it seems that I was wrong and that you’re still trying to defend the indefensible.

Do you (and ROOL, who remain silent on how they are involved with this distribution) have no respect for the wishes of the platform’s software developers?

What you’re describing sounds a lot like RiscPkg. Would it not be easier and less wasteful of scarce resources to just use that?

Is RiscPkg of any use for software not in the RiscPkg package format?

Sadly, it seems that I was wrong and that you’re still trying to defend the indefensible.

Maybe less defending than just venting his frustation that this whole distribution thing isn’t as simple as he hoped.

Anyway, I thought this loop had met it’s exit condition today?