On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Michael Picco <mpi...@rcstechnology.com>wrote:
> Thank you Paulo, for your succinct breakdown of information that > matters. Perhaps this will put an end to the somewhat incessant > yammering that's been going on for the last few days. Such apparent > in-fighting does nothing to advance what is good in AmForth (something I > will probably never master, as there are people here that are far more > adept with it than I), which is what I hope this forum will return to. > > Kind regards to all. > > I must concur with both Paulo's assessment and your own. It seems that AmForth is about to lose its second most prolific contributor because the 'freedom' of the license doesn't grant him the particular freedom he needs. To be crystal clear, I see/feel a bit of acrimony, but this is not the result of hurt feelings in a flame war. This is a pragmatic consequence of the license chosen, and reflects on the nature of the project. I went over the past few days very briefly. It would seem that Enoch, myself, DaR, and Paulo all favor BSD, at least for microcontrol in Forth. Enoch is, in essence, unwilling to contribute further without some relaxation in the license. Hannu has remarked that it would be a shame to lose Enoch's contributions, and I concur. Matthias has the only opinion which matters, and is on record as strongly opposed to this sort of license. This is all especially sad because Forth is small and getting smaller. Meanwhile, I'm excited about the potential and future of the language, especially in microcontrol. I really feel for the position Enoch seems to be in. He's about to lose (months?) of work because he interpreted the GPL incorrectly. It's obvious to me that he's been participating and giving back in good faith. He might be the only person on the planet being paid to develop AmForth right now. One of two is a safe bet. This is a very small project and I really hope the key players can come to an agreement. May I humbly suggest you email each other directly, to reduce the risk of posturing and unhelpful third-party comments? This entire email might be an unhelpful third party comment. This is always a risk. ^_^ cheers, -Sam. > Michael Picco > > > > On 2/19/2014 3:30 AM, Paulo Ferreira wrote: > > Not reading "Legal mumbo jumbo" and not having a bit of good sense is > the kind of thing that can get you into serious troubles. > > > > I am a "lurker" here and I have just "played" with AmForth. > > I also sympathize more with the BSD licenses than with the GPL licenses. > > > > BUT: > > 1) Mathias has chosen the GPL license, and he should have the > freedom of choosing what license he wants. It is his work. > > And others should support his choice. > > > > 2) The view of "Forth" as an Operating System is (at least) > seriously flawed. > > > > > > Yes, "software running under an operating system" is a thing, but the > "GPL" page on Wikipedia also says: > > ======= > > "For example if a program consists only of own original custom software, > or is combined with source code from other software components, then the > own custom software components need not be licensed under GPL and need not > make their code available; even if the underlying operating system used is > licensed under the GPL, applications running on it are not considered > derivative works. Only if GPLed parts are used in a program (and the > program is distributed), then all other source code of the program needs to > be made available under the same license terms. The GNU Lesser General > Public license (LGPL) was created to have a weaker copyleft than the GPL, > in that it does not require own custom-developed source code (distinct from > the LGPLed parts) to be made available under the same license terms." > > ========== > > > > And further down there is the clarification of what means an "aggregate" > or a "bundled version": > > > > ========== > > 'What is the difference between an "aggregate" and other kinds of > "modified versions"? > > An "aggregate" consists of a number of separate programs, distributed > together on the same CD-ROM or other media. The GPL permits you to create > and distribute an aggregate, even when the licenses of the other software > are non-free or GPL-incompatible. The only condition is that you cannot > release the aggregate under a license that prohibits users from exercising > rights that each program's individual license would grant them. > > Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two > parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We > believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of > communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address > space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of > information are interchanged). > > If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are > definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked > together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them > into one program. > > By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication > mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are > used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if > the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex > internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two > parts as combined into a larger program. > > The FSF thus draws the line between "library" and "other program" via 1) > "complexity" and "intimacy" of information exchange, and 2) mechanism > (rather than semantics), but resigns that the question is not clear-cut and > that in complex situations, case law will need to decide. > > ======= > > > > > > On my personal opinion there are two different views: > > > > 1) You have made with AmForth a "program" that is "self-contained". > It does not use any AmForth words at run-time. You can argue that in that > case AmForth is used as an "Operating System", and that the GPL will not > apply. If that goes to court, you will need a very good lawyer and lots of > good luck. > > > > > > 2) Your "program" uses "words" from AmForth at run-time. Then, it can > be said that the result is not an "aggregate" but a "linked version", > because it needs an "complex and intimate" knowledge of the forth words > (not just names, but addresses and stack passing conventions). On this > case, your "program" uses AmForth as a library and is under the GPL. > > > > > > > > If you have any problems with the GPL, you should not be using GPL > licensed software, in ways that are not allowed by the GPL. > > AmForth is GPL licensed software, it says so on the distribution files. > Get over it. > > > > And please don't pester Matthias over the GPL terms. > > > > > > Paulo Ferreira > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
