_The Doctor__ Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 The four freedoms are the starting point and embody the spirit of the license that most judges refer to when considering the intention of following license. The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). The foundation created the GNU General Public License commonly referred to as GPL... as a copyleft license that developers can distribute their software under to qualify it as free and ensure that it stays that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_The Doctor__ Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 On 7/19/2019 at 8:45 PM, Mr Robot said: 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. politics involve more than one person, someone contributed to the project when it was open. Now they don't want things to be so. The author can still release the source if he wishes, the other contribution was given, and by the scenario you laid out... is under GPL. I think GPL considers any such contribution when disputed as being forked at it's base. The rest becomes self explanatory. More information is needed if it's otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Robot Posted July 22, 2019 Author Share Posted July 22, 2019 25 minutes ago, _The Doctor__ said: 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. I make no such assumption. I merely said if the original author wants to close his source he can. I did not say that that is what had happened and that Jakub Kruszona-Zawadzki was the only contributor. To make that claim I'd have had to have checked every source code header to see who is credited and I havent done that, have you? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Robot Posted July 22, 2019 Author Share Posted July 22, 2019 13 minutes ago, Mr Robot said: To make that claim I'd have had to have checked every source code header to see who is credited and I havent done that Right. I have now done that. Every file is ©Jakub Kruszona-Zawadzki no other author is credited anywhere. There is no changelog. It is the sole property of Jakub Kruszona-Zawadzki. If anyone else worked on the code, they did not assert any ownership over it. NOW I am saying that if Jakub Kruszona-Zawadzki wants to close source his software after releasing v2.5 and only release v3 and upwards as closed source binary only, that is entirely up to him, it's his. I wish he wouldn't but he has that right. 14 minutes ago, _The Doctor__ said: politics involve more than one person, someone contributed to the project when it was open. Now they don't want things to be so. The author can still release the source if he wishes, the other contribution was given, and by the scenario you laid out... is under GPL. I think GPL considers any such contribution when disputed as being forked at it's base. The rest becomes self explanatory. All of this word salad is incorrect, please delete it. No one worked on the firmware for this project (and if anyone did, they made no such claim in the source code). Your point is not just wrong, it is also moot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_The Doctor__ Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 Your very first post says that politics are preventing the release, you outline how the author could take it closed. The previous released source can't be taken closed. Any other contributions are considered forked at base. The original author did not remove all contributions. It's still GPL. Not everyone is credited either(maybe some politics there?).... which leads to some more theater. No one need check every single header either. You don't need to. So, is there a reason this open source project has closed source firmware? sure, conflict between some parties over it. But if you say you talked with the originating author and he would like to but is held back by politics... well, that is a personal conflict and not a legal one. Has he asserted someone else claims ownership of his work, is his work considered a fork from the other person? Where is the public disclosure of the other author? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_The Doctor__ Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 (edited) You claim politics are the reason as cited in your first post then argue against its existence. You want source then argue for ways it can be denied you. None of this makes any sense, and yes others contributed... If you can't figure out how I know this, you really aren't worried about this at all and can continue debating against your first claims in the first post. You are correct all that follows is pointless. It's an argument against itself and a waste of time. I for one am sorry to have wasted my time looking at any of it. So you have my apologies, as a person who argues both for and against a thing is always right. Or wrong depending on your view. Edited July 22, 2019 by _The Doctor__ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Robot Posted July 22, 2019 Author Share Posted July 22, 2019 Just now, _The Doctor__ said: Your very first post says that politics are preventing the release My first post says that Jakub Husak says politics is the reason later source is not available. 2 minutes ago, _The Doctor__ said: you outline how the author could take it closed I do 3 minutes ago, _The Doctor__ said: Any other contributions are considered forked at base And this is where you try to use buzzword bingo and go wrong. Any other contributions from the author are not a fork, neither are any contributions from anyone to the main source tree. Nobody has forked anything (except Jakub Husak, and he released his updated source fork) 5 minutes ago, _The Doctor__ said: Not everyone is credited If you are not credited, in the source, on the cvs commit history or in the changelog, it doesn't matter if you contributed, you don't exist. Will you please stop derailing my thread. I don't need lessons on the GPL, I think I know it better than you. All that condescending linking to the four freedoms and other irrelevant crap is just passive aggressive posturing, stop deflecting, own the mistake and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Robot Posted July 22, 2019 Author Share Posted July 22, 2019 9 minutes ago, _The Doctor__ said: You want source then argue for ways it can be denied you. I don't always get what I want. That's life 9 minutes ago, _The Doctor__ said: and yes others contributed... If you can't figure out how I know this I don't care how you know this. If people contributed and didn't assert that contribution, they didn't contribute. If Jakub decided to close his source and others had contributed, if they didn't prosecute at the time they were free to fork and continue updating, no one did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_The Doctor__ Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 (edited) On 7/19/2019 at 8:45 PM, Mr Robot said: 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. This is the first post. It answers itself, you have the source up until then. This is what you said the thread is about in the first post... Is it about something else? Do you want the later source? Do you want someone to help make this happen? Or do you want folks to forget about it? Edited July 22, 2019 by _The Doctor__ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Robot Posted July 22, 2019 Author Share Posted July 22, 2019 The question still hasn't been answered. The reason this open source project has closed source firmware is because of 'politics' but no one has said what politics, it may as well just say 'reasons'. It's a non-answer. Why did Jakub decide to close his source? Those sorts of things don't usually happen for no reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_The Doctor__ Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 Circles, the reason is a conflict with persons involved. If you want the exact details and an airing of their grievances your not going to get one. Private messages and mediation are what is required. It's only getting more difficult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Robot Posted July 22, 2019 Author Share Posted July 22, 2019 So the grand total of your contribution to the thread is "I know but it's a secret and I'm not telling you", you know nothing but it sounds better than "I don't know" 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_The Doctor__ Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 (edited) It's sad you couldn't take the answer for what it was worth and work through pm's Nice... Okay, it's clear you don't want it. Edited July 22, 2019 by _The Doctor__ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Robot Posted July 22, 2019 Author Share Posted July 22, 2019 5 minutes ago, _The Doctor__ said: Okay, it's clear you don't want it. I've no idea what 'it' is, is it another secret? You know what they say... Put up or shut up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_The Doctor__ Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 To repeat, you needed to take it private, based on your response you wouldn't have kept your mouth shut anyway. how cute... now you don't know what 'it' could have been... could it have been the reasons or the source. I suspect you wanted both. Well it doesn't matter any longer. Done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin1968 Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 3 hours ago, ivop said: I have a partly finished Arduino Nano SIO emulation. Could put it up on github if anybody's interested.... Yes please! I would love to play with it. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Robot Posted July 22, 2019 Author Share Posted July 22, 2019 17 minutes ago, _The Doctor__ said: To repeat, you needed to take it private, I didn't need to do anything 17 minutes ago, _The Doctor__ said: based on your response you wouldn't have kept your mouth shut anyway. You've no idea 17 minutes ago, _The Doctor__ said: could it have been the reasons or the source. I don't believe you have either. Put up or shut up 19 minutes ago, _The Doctor__ said: Done Finally! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DrVenkman Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 I suspect some Ignore lists were bolstered by this exchange, so ... yay? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chri O. Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, ivop said: I have a partly finished Arduino Nano SIO emulation. Could put it up on github if anybody's interested.... Thanks for the offer my design is based on Teensy 3.5 ARM Microcontroller, here from March 27 2019: SIO Atari Drive testing. I'm experimenting with lots of things right now for example: WAV file FSK (Frequency-shift keying) ATARI Cassette tape decoding with sound support (8bit or 16bit mono or stereo channel), not sure when I will release the source files but it will definitely be under MIT license. Edited July 23, 2019 by Chri O. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivop Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 11 hours ago, Chri O. said: Thanks for the offer my design is based on Teensy 3.5 ARM Microcontroller, here from March 27 2019: SIO Atari Drive testing. I'm experimenting with lots of things right now for example: WAV file FSK (Frequency-shift keying) ATARI Cassette tape decoding with sound support (8bit or 16bit mono or stereo channel), not sure when I will release the source files but it will definitely be under MIT license. https://github.com/ivop/sio2world main.c is BSD0 license (i.e. Public Domain, but with enough legal mumbo jumbo to keep the lawyers happy), the ff library is BSD2. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivop Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 (edited) I glanced over my own source code today and found some clarification missing, which I added today. If you cloned, you can do git pull, but I thought it might be useful to post it here, too. For Pokey divisor <= 3, the current code switches to 8N2 instead of 8N1, i.e. a double stop bit. Somehow, my unmodified Atari 800XL was able to keep up with divisor 0. With 8N1 (which it should be), it could not. After I cut the caps, it started to work with 8N1, too. Anyway, YMMV. I thought it was a nice way to get faster SIO with an unmodified Atari and was planning to make it configurable. Edited July 24, 2019 by ivop 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_The Doctor__ Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 I've had the same experience, there's something to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.