Sam Putman <atmanis...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Hannu Vuolasaho <vuo...@msn.com> wrote: > >> First thing about topic. >> >> The language which you rae using is forth. it is obfuscated already to 99% >> of people. :) >> >> Secondly it would be sad to lose Enoch from community who has given quite >> many ideas. >> >> Thirdly about GPL. >> >> I'm not a lawyer but my own research has lead me to think about GPL. It is >> pain to work if doing stuff commercially for washing machines. However I've >> done some washing machine maker-robots with GPL code, provided code and >> they have been happy. And company where I made this has still support >> contract. >> >> > To: amforth-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> > From: i...@hotmail.com >> > Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:44:53 -0500 >> > Subject: Re: [Amforth] Dictionary names obfuscation >> >> > Changes to your kernel I make constantly public (amforth-shadow on >> > github) but "my dishwasher code" which a customer pays to develop I >> > cannot disclose. >> >> Your : washer wash rinse spin ; may have any license as long you can >> change it. >> When AmForth interprets it and it is compiled to flash GPL has catched it. >> It is part of binary object and GPL says sources for binary must be >> distributed. >> >> > Note that this only happens if either proprietary software, or a product > based on proprietary software, is actually sold. The large corporations are > notorious for having private-label versions of many open-source tools, > which they run on their servers only. No commerce, no violation. Affero was > invented in response to this. > > So if Joe is contracted to design proprietary software for, say, a machine > tool already owned by the company in question, it may certainly be based on > GPL code and no redistribution of the code may be compelled. Given the > existence of even more restrictive 'free' licenses (Affero stresses my idea > of freedom, personally), this can't be interpreted as against the spirit of > GPL at present, and is certainly well within the letter. > > Also (and I may be the only one who cares about this) BSD code can't be > contaminated by GPL. Look at it this way: Anyone can fork BSD into GPL at > any time, so the 'AmForth + BSD = GNU' formula is a mere formality. BSD + > proprietary forth = what you want it to is always an option, as long as one > sticks with the permissive fork. > > Selling or distributing a product based on AmForth without distributing the > source code is a violation both of the letter and spirit of the GPL, AFAIK. > Workaround are always a possibility, but why? Proprietary Forths aren't > expensive.
SwiftX won't let you modify itself. I took AmForth and changed it to fit my needs (everyone's needs, IMHO) and of-course made the derived code publicly available via AmForth-Shadow. What Matthias needs to clarify is if he really thinks that a "Google Maps" like product must disclose its source code because it runs on an Android GPLv2 like Linux. Regards, Enoch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls. Read the Whitepaper. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=121054471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Amforth-devel mailing list for http://amforth.sf.net/ Amforth-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel
