Matthias Trute <mtr...@web.de> writes: > Hi, > >> SwiftX won't let you modify itself. > > You obey their license terms? > >> 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. > > I appreciate it. That some of your ideas didn't go > into amforth does not mean that I rejected them. e.g. > your soft interrupt queue is interesting. Your > implementation is not as good as your idea. IMHO. > > RTS/CTS flowcontrol is something for a recipe > (like Ctrl-C), it creates a hardware dependency > that is not satisfied everywhere. > >> 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. > > please read the mail from Paulo, his explanation is mine. > > Your interpretation that amforth is a operating system (kernel) is > questionable. amforth does alomost nothing an OS has to do (e.g. > ressource management). Its only an interpreter on bare metal. > > > To come to an end, amforth is free and open source software. > Everybody using it SHOULD honour this and publish his code too. > I am interested in it and it is my impression that I'm not alone. > The GPL is a vehicle to achieve this in a formal way. Everybody > who does not share this my general point of view and flees > into legal details can do with the code whatever he wants > to do. I could not stop it. > > I will never support these people. And I ask everybody else > to do so too. Something like amforth-shadow is not sufficient > to heal the wounds. > > Matthias
Dear Matthias, May I suggest that you include a README in your repository where you explicitly state that any AmForth code, even one that is totally underived from yours, must be disclosed to the end user in source form. In my opinion throwing in the iconic GPLv2 is not good enough. It's not just me saying that but Stanford Prof. Van Lindberg in his book "Intellectual Property and Open Source". To the question "whether linking programs together creates a derivative work" he says succinctly "the short answer is that we don’t know". As for my problem. I had a serious conversation with the customer. The bottom line is, they have no problem supplying application AmForth code in source form to their end-users provided that this source code is absent of my comments and my-wordy-word-names. Easily done and also a Flash space saver. I'll leave the GPLv2/3/4/5/6... debate to the lawyers and to the philosophers. As for Amforth-Shadow. By introducing Second Level Interrupt Handlers I was able to accomplish things via Interrupt Routines which standard AmForth can only dream of doing via (the inefficient) multitasking. You don't want to cache in RAM the memory allocation pointers (EEPROM based DP, HERE, EDP), it's fine with me, I'll do mine the "EESY" way :-) AmForth is your toy, AmForth-Shadow is my derived sandbox. Long live OSS. 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
