Jump to content
Mr Robot

SIO2SD Firmware Source

Recommended Posts

So, is there a reason this open source project has closed source firmware? 

 

I’ve been looking everywhere and all I can find is binary releases and some old code that doesn’t work with current hardware  the author on GitHub said there was some politics around it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know.

 

I took a look at the software version on the website and that one is 3.1RC2. (http://sio2sd.gucio.pl/wiki/SoftwareAVR_en)

 

Looking at Lothareks site, he states "Fimware uploaded is the latest one -  version 3.1 RC2  / www.lotharek.pl customized."

 

So it sounds like there is some customization indeed 😞 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AtariGeezer said:

That's v2.5, better than nothing but the changelog since then is like

 

3.0rc1 -> 3.0rc2

  • Fixed LCD handling bug (RC1 doesn't work without LCD) 
  • Added "swap" command (K3 in VDISK MODE swaps mappings of D1 and D2) 
  • Added "rol4" command (K4 in VDISK MODE moves mappings D1<D2<D3<D4<D1) 

  • Added "ror4" command (SHIFT+K4 in VDISK MODE moves mappings D1>D2>D3>D4>D1) 

3.0rc2 -> 3.0rc3

  • Fixed xex-loader. 
  • Added new key combinations OPTION+SELECT and OPTION+START to turbo-loader (new turbo IRQ locations: $700 and $500). 

3.0rc3 -> 3.0rc4

  • Fixed SIO routines (mainly incompatibilities with software made for TOMS turbo) 

3.0rc4 -> 3.0rc5

  • Changes in SD initialization routines ("card init error" should appear much less frequently) 
  • SD speed is choosen automatically (SD speed option was removed) 
  • Fixed card insertion/removal logic 
  • Added ability to go directly to setup when card is not present (using dbl-shift) 

3.0rc5 -> 3.1rc1

  • Virtual disks simplification 
  • Fixed turbo routines - emulation of Top-Drive (aka TOMS) and XF551 
  • More compatible SIO routines (return to timings from version 2.x - slower, but more reliable) 
  • Ordinary files and empty disks are emulated as SD disks if possible (size < 90k) 

3.1rc1 -> 3.1rc2

  • Fixed bug in file handle (mainly XEX files) 
  • Fixed warmstart issue in xex-loader

 

There is a v2.5 modified for an smd version here https://github.com/jhusak/sio2sd_2.5_smd

Looks like none of the v3 sources were released.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mr Robot said:

It's all GPL 2 or newer

 

So presumably anyone using anything derived from it commercially is required to provide (and arguably distribute, I think) the source code for their changes or derivative work. Has anyone asked Lotharek to publish what he's using? 

 

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, toddtmw said:

Who is selling it/modifying it?

See the post by @Fred_M a little above. It appears that Lotharek is using a later version that has been customized by him or someone working for him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SIO2SD firmware was developed by Jakub Kruszona-Zawadzki and is available for download on his webpage:

http://sio2sd.gucio.pl/wiki/SoftwareAVR_en

I guess that Lotharek's customized firmware does not differ from the Jakub's one, probably only the original text was replaced with "lotharek.pl".

Jakub published his source code of the old 2.5 firmware, but for some reasons he didn't do it for 3.1, although many people asked him for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if it's the original author who is keeping later revisions closed that's up to him, I wonder why he changed his mind? 

I thought it would be a nice idea to make an sio2sd with a larger screen but I guess this is why lothareks new larger one still only has a 2 line screen. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's not how that works. You better be committed to the path before you take it. I can't release my software to the public domain today, and then change my mind later on and start enforcement as if I didn't. The code has to be totally new otherwise, not built continued from what I gave away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely one can do whatever the Hell one likes with one's own code. Other developers are perfectly at liberty to build upon what's already in the public domain, even if the original developer decides to withdraw further development from the public realm for whatever reason. Not necessarily the most agreeable course of action, but an open-source license need only apply to the code that's open, and not pre-emptively apply to every line of code the developer may add in the future. I don't see any retroactive attempts to take down the version 2.5 sources, and it would be futile anyway if people have already downloaded it.

 

Licensing problems arise if the person who places an open-source project behind a wall didn't write any or all of the code in the first place, of course; we saw an instance of that a few years back.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, flashjazzcat said:

Surely one can do whatever the Hell one likes with one's own code. Other developers are perfectly at liberty to build upon what's already in the public domain, even if the original developer decides to withdraw further development from the public realm for whatever reason. Not necessarily the most agreeable course of action, but an open-source license need only apply to the code that's open, and not pre-emptively apply to every line of code the developer may add in the future. 

Well, that's more or less what the GPL says - "open source" isn't the same as "public domain." You're free to examine the code, use it however you like, but if you add stuff to it and use it commercially, you're required to share your changes back to the community by publishing said changes. This kind of thing has caused a hell of lot of complexity in the *nix world, and many licenses now exist that purport to deal with it in different ways: GPL, GPL2, GPL3, BSD, MIT, plus the variants of the Creative Commons licenses ... Court battles have been fought over it. 

 

So that's why I asked what the earlier version 2.5 of the firmware was licensed under. Per that license, any changes made to it and used for commercial purposes must be shared. But good luck enforcing it.

 

*shrug*

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, _The Doctor__ said:

that's not how that works. You better be committed to the path before you take it. I can't release my software to the public domain today, and then change my mind later on and start enforcement as if I didn't. The code has to be totally new otherwise, not built continued from what I gave away.

Yes that is how it works. 

 

If I licence something as GPL and release it, then decide the next version isn't going to be GPL'd that's up to me as the author. I am the only one who has that right as I am the original author. I cannot rescind the licence for earlier versions I had already licensed, but I don't have to release newer versions with the same licence. 

 

Of course, anyone else releasing a fork of my code has to licence the same as my original licence, they don't get to change the licence until they remove any code created and licensed by others as GPL.

 

Privilege of being the original author.

 

This is how you get shareware software that goes commercial, the original authors change the licence.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

SIO2SD Firmware Source

Interesting discussion,  I've been working on my own SIO Drive implementation because of the binary releases only ?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Chri O. said:

Interesting discussion,  I've been working on my own SIO Drive implementation because of the binary releases only ?

I have a partly finished Arduino Nano SIO emulation. Could put it up on github if anybody's interested....

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original work is still under the old license...but whatever... the new code is under whatever you choose but the old parts are still under the old license including bug fixes... otherwise there is no point to any of it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, _The Doctor__ said:

The original work is still under the old license...but whatever... the new code is under whatever you choose but the old parts are still under the old license including bug fixes... otherwise there is no point to any of it.

No thats not how it works. 

If I release v2.5 as GPL. It's now forever GPL.

If I release v2.6, version 2.5 is still GPL, no matter what I licence 2.6

 

If I release v2.5 as GPL and I then release a bugfix of v2.5 and call it v2.6 but choose to licence it as closed source and private. I am not breaking the terms of the licence. It's all my code I do not have to give away those bug fixes if I don't want to.

 

If I release v2.5 and _you_ release a bugfix of it and call it v2.6 you have to licence it as GPL too.

 

If I then take _your_ code and produce v2.7 I cannot close the source unless I take your code out. 

 

If any of the code written by someone other than you has been GPL'd, you have to release as GPL too, but if _all_ the code is yours, regardless of whether you released it as GPL or not, it is your to re-licence as you see fit. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I spelled my name wrong, I fixed the bug, it's no longer GPL....because I fixed my typo and I choose that it no longer to be gpl. that is not how previous cases have worked... but whatever no point in this. There appears to be source code out there for folks to work off of. More than one set of hands worked on this stuff. It's not a complete re write in any case, so no big deal. I don't feel this is very constructive.

 

I suggest individuals approach whoever about whatever and explain what they wish to fix or change and why. If the individuals are receptive, you either get permission or they will do the fix themselves, worst case they want it left alone and don't care. So if not just use the prior work, and or contact others who worked on the project and get their permissions to use what part they participated in.

 

Next you can argue if the other persons bug fix is the same as the original authors bug fix because they transposed a piece of code if it's then a violation when the transposition is fixed resulting in the correct exact same code. You might be interested in what the courts have decided. Sure it's a mess, but it has been handled on case by case basis. I'll stick with how the rulings generally came down.

 

old fashioned shareware isn't the same thing, how'd that even creep into this?

Edited by _The Doctor__

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trivial stuff like a typo or header files generally do not fall under a license, because they are ehm.. trivial. But about all other things Mr. Robot is right. If you are the sole author and release say v1.0, you can still take your own code of which you own the copyright, fix bugs and release v2.0 binary only. If you have included bug fixes by other authors, you either need their permission or remove and rewrite their code. If you don't do that, you are in violation of the other author's rights on pieces of code in your project :)

 

Anyway, let's be done with closed software for retro computers. I really don't get it, unless you make money of it, like Simius, Candle, Tucker, etc... with their closed CPLD/FPGA implementations. I get that. But if not, just share the damn source like a lot of people luckily do. You know who you are. Thanks for that!

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

that's not what he said at first, although further edits and postings attempt to mitigate that. the four freedoms are where all of this started. You need to know all the people involved in project and what they contributed. You need to know which license it started under and if it migrated or not. It doesn't look like anyone involved removed all of the contributions by others from their code. The evolution of gpl is because of just such behaviors. Look at the whole TIVO fiasco and a number of router companies... most were forced to publish the source code only a scant few were not.

 

Start here

https://www.fsf.org/

then work your way through some articles

then proceed to GNU

then look at prior litigation and the changes made to the licenses and why.

 

let's not forget countries that don't follow any of these rules and those who are in those places who then try to assert such licenses over items they themselves did not honor.

 

I still agree with the spirit of ijor's post ;)     just share the damn source. :)

Edited by _The Doctor__
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, _The Doctor__ said:

further edits and postings

What edits? The only edited posts on this page so far are both yours.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, _The Doctor__ said:

I spelled my name wrong, I fixed the bug, it's no longer GPL....because I fixed my typo and I choose that it no longer to be gpl. that is not how previous cases have worked... but whatever no point in this. There appears to be source code out there for folks to work off of. More than one set of hands worked on this stuff. It's not a complete re write in any case, so no big deal. I don't feel this is very constructive.

 

You really hate being told you are wrong don't you!

 

If you release as GPL, notice you spelled your name wrong and fix it, changing the licence while you are at it, your name will now forever be spelled wrong in the GPL version and right in the closed source version. You are trying really really hard to make this difficult and it isn't.

 

7 minutes ago, _The Doctor__ said:

that's not what he said at first, and further edits and postings attempt to mitigate that. 

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I said at first. I have posted nothing to mitigate my original CORRECT post. You were wrong, just own it and move on.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just read the findings over time and move on.

 

It's not black and white since it's inception, and it has nothing to do with right or wrong. It simply has do what has happened, changes made and what might happen based on what came before. That's why GPL has changed over time as has had a few licenses. At this point the scope seems to encompass the entirety of GPL and shareware(wow that's broad an can't be handled as such). I pointed out what has already been ruled on. Lawyers argue all the time, the Judges have the final say. I referred folks to where it all starts and encourage them to read it from the ground up. That's why I included the very first link, and mentioned some points to search and peruse. You make the assumption all others contributions were removed and it was a complete re-write from the ground up with originating author content only and that not the case... It wasn't. end of story. Your own words say that it's GPL until that is done.

 

also since you wanted to bring shareware into it.

Shareware isn't freeware or open source. Shareware had many different conditions that the author attached to their work. Some even required you delete it if you chose not to donate, purchase or follow their rules.

Edited by _The Doctor__

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...