Oxygen Basic
Information => Development => Topic started by: José Roca on November 14, 2018, 09:35:58 AM
-
Open source?
-
One day I hope to be able to hand over for open-source management.
I don't understand your question.
-
Quote from Charles Pegge:
"OxygenBasic is certainly in the public domain, as you have defined it here."
https://www.oxygenbasic.org/forum/index.php?topic=1035.msg8647#msg8647
I don't understand your obstination.
-
The Script BASIC open source project uses the MIT (public domain) license as I assume Charles has done with O2. He has not released his ownership or copyright to his work.
-
I don't care what SB uses or not. If you bother to read Charles post...
"OxygenBasic is certainly in the public domain, as you have defined it here. I would only add that providing references and web-links, is encouraged to indicate provenance and to facilitate further development. But this project is not ego-powered :)"
And in Mike's post above it:
"1. Public domain - do whatever your like, no credit required or even expected, no responsibility assumed."
Therefore your assumption is wrong and your statement untrue.
-
Talk to Charles about the license status of O2. I don't have the time or interest educating you about open source.
-
You don't need to educate me about anything.
-
The world is overwhelmed by those that know everything.
-
One of my long-term aims is to get o2 source code into a more accessible format. It is complex, and recursive at several levels. Not easy to get into, but it would be nice to make it a shareable project.
PS:
How complicated it is to be in the public domain :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-domain_software
-
How complicated it is to be in the public domain?
That question normally is never asked. Software put in public domain is because the author died. Why not a MIT license which retains ownership and copyright but allows the software to be used without restrictions?
If you go public domain, you might as well call O2 skunkware.
-
How complicated it is to be in the public domain
Searching for some more information I came across three words which were new to me: Gemeinfreiheit, Daseinsfürsorge, Daseinsvorsorge. I am excited. German is still a living language.
Software put in public domain is because the author died
Perhaps this is not so simple e.g. in Germany there is the "Urheberrecht" (kind of copyright). If I understand this correctly then currently, it is established that this copyright goes beyond the death of the creator - usually up to 70 years. Exceptions are photographs. These have a protection period of 50 years.
I do not know the regulations in other countries. And I hope that I do not violate the rights of others. I just want to develop a few small apps in Oxygenbasic to learn about programming. But this only works if I can build on the tools and knowledge of other authors, which of course I would mark.
-
I facilitate open source projects and help build a community behind it. If O2 isn't going the open source route with a license to state its status, I no longer have interest in the gift.
With the implosion of BASIC and variation authors abandoning their projects, someone should create a BASIC theme park and call it ZaleLand.
-
If some form of license is required, the MIT licence is fairly close. Though I would question the notion of copyright being applied to this kind of software. A compiler is not a static work of art. It is more like an algorithm. And mathematical concepts cannot be patented or copyrighted. Nor can languages for that matter :)
-
I highly recommend the MIT direction. A two paragraph license stating use and liability terms.
-
And in Mike's post above it:
"1. Public domain - do whatever your like, no credit required or even expected, no responsibility assumed."
IANAL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL) but I stand firm by my words: Public Domain means "Do whatever you like with the binaries and sources that henceforth go open for everybody and for any purpose, public or private, free or commercial, legal or illegal. Attribution to the original author is not required (but will be appreciated if given)."
I used to do quite a bit of my own research regarding permissive licenses, and from my perspective, based on the former Public Domain status of O2, Charles (or any other person, for that matter) is in their indispensable right to change the license of their copy of O2 sources to any other license -- permissive (BSD, MIT, or similar), restrictive (GPL, LGPL, or commercial) -- or even close it (the copy) with its modifications, fixes, etc., if any, completely at any time starting from a certain date. Other people's copies and/or mods based on the sources earlier than that date still remain in the Public Domain (if those people so wish).
It means that stricter license terms (and MIT is clearly stricter than Public Domain because it requires attribution) may not be imposed in retrospective. Which means Charles may not take back his words spoken in the thread cited by Jose.
OTOH if I were in Charles' shoes, I'd probably leave the FB-based O2 sources in the Public Domain altogether for historical reasons but I'd put the self-compiling Oxygen's sources under the terms of MIT license. Just because a self compiling compiler of such quality, versatility and completeness is a no-nonsense achievement, and the name of its creator should not go into oblivion by all means.
If O2 isn't going the open source route with a license to state its status, I no longer have interest in the gift.
John, "open source" is just what it literally says: "source open to all" -- subject to certain conditions, if any. Do not try to force us to see things that aren't there. You know, Occam's razor and stuff...
Public Domain presupposes that everyone who cares has always been, still is, and will continue to be, granted free and unrestricted access to O2's source code at least in its FreeBASIC notation. So it is open source regardless of your earlier, current, or future interest in the project.
-
Thanks Mike for your suggestions and comments on this matter. I was hoping you would chime in due to all your research and experience.
I have seen and used many Public Domain software solutions that had no source and was submitted as is as a binary offering.
-
That's correct, there used to be a lot of similar free-to-use software distributed in its binary form only, especially back in the DOS times. There is still some such around although the majority of it now comes with the source code of various degrees of accessibility and usability according to its particular license terms.
I'm absolutely sure Charles has never intended to withdraw the O2 sources from public access regardless of the license he's likely to cover them with at different stages of project development. There's just that one peculiarity with re-licensing to stricter terms: such terms may not be re-applied retrospectively to the periods when the license used to be more permissive.
So from that perspective you may rest assured OxygenBasic has been and will continue to be open source in the sense of unrestricted accessibility to its source code. However the amount of freedom as to what the 3rd parties may do with it can vary depending upon the degree of "severity" or "liberality" of its current license(s).
Charles, please correct me if I've misinterpreted your intentions with regard to O2 sources, which I think I have not, at least not so dramatically as to be completely untrue.
-
Public domain indicates abandoned software free to use if you can find value with its use. Not the best status for a programming language someone would use to create new software.
I think Mike's suggestion of making the self compiled version MIT as a way to recover from this misstep makes sense.
-
It appears that under the Berne convention, 1988, Copyright is automatically applied to any creative work, including software. Formal registration and copyright notices are not required.
Under the Berne Convention, which most countries have signed, an author automatically obtains the exclusive copyright to anything they have written, and local law may similarly grant copyright, patent, or trademark rights by default. The Berne Convention also covers programs. Therefore, a program is automatically subject to a copyright, and if it is to be placed in the public domain, the author must explicitly disclaim the copyright and other rights on it in some way, e.g. by a waiver statement.[1] In some Jurisdictions, some rights (in particular moral rights) cannot be disclaimed: for instance, civil law tradition-based German law's "Urheberrecht" differs here from the Anglo-Saxon common law tradition's "copyright" concept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-domain_software
This indicates to me that some kind of formal licensing document is required, both for FB-compiled and Self-compiled o2. Otherwise the default copyright terms are quite restrictive.
-
It appears that under the Berne convention, 1988, Copyright is automatically applied to any creative work, including software.
Charles, you are correct _except_ that all works specifically marked in the Public Domain, which waive any intellectual property claims by the author. Your choice of Public Domain was very generous, not an indication of death nor abandonment.
If you felt the need for a more formal declaration of PD, I'd suggest the "CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication". It effectively asserts your "Simple PD Declaration" using a bunch more words.
Public domain indicates abandoned software
Public Domain indicates no such thing. It is a long-established legal term, recognized by all the Berne participants, to provide free and unencumbered usage without terms. PD is even more permissive than the MIT License which still has a requirement and restrictions, regardless of how minimal.
-
That's a good point, Charles.
In fact I've seen a few such explicit disclaimers (waivers) of authorship accompanying Public Domain submissions. And I've seen quite a few submissions that didn't have such disclaimers, e.g. a number of OpenGL and GLSL tutorial courses (of the NeHe OpenGL lessons kind) I've come about just recently with awesome text, visuals and accompanying source code that were explicitly placed in the Public Domain by their respective authors without any disclaimers or waivers of authorship.
So, I think the disclaimer per se isn't a decisive factor to legitimate a Public Domain submission. And even more so when we all feel it would be improper to anonymize OxygenBasic that's in fact a creation to be proud rather than ashamed of. :)
-
My only point is its tough trying to build a community around a public domain open source project.
I've come about just recently with awesome text, visuals and accompanying source code that were explicitly placed in the Public Domain by their respective authors without any disclaimers or waivers of authorship.
I wonder if I could put Windows in public domain? There doesn't seem to be any breadcrumbs back to the submitter if the stuff just appears.
-
... its tough trying to build a community around a public domain open source project.
That's correct. Public Domain is usually something one drags to one's hidey-hole to build one's own private project upon. ;D
-
Be on the lookout for CO2.
-
CO2 is reserved for Charles' Oxygen compiler. Rather watch out for something like C2H5(OH). ;D
I wonder if I could put Windows in public domain? There doesn't seem to be any breadcrumbs back to the submitter if the stuff just appears.
That's a dangerous illusion. You'll be surprised how fast you're going to be tracked down, cornered, put to trial, and eventually electrocuted because MS and Windows are the US national concerns. Sure you wouldn't like the Commies (like the Chinese or Nothern Koreans) or the gangsters (like the Russians) to grab the most modern technologies of today?
-
I would strongly recommend holding onto all copyright to your software, but simply use a liberal software license making O2 "Freeware".
By maintaining the copyright, one can keep control of the software so it is not abused by others. I personally don't like OpenSource, because most of the licenses don't fit well for commercial software. Freeware though is better, since you get the benefit of it being free to use, but protected so not abused. The "forking" of many an OpenSource project, may seem nice, it can often create confusion for end users. Few, other than the original developer, really understands the code in a project. When third parties get a hold of an open source project and then attempt to make a new "forked" project, the quality of the software can suffer.
I offered a few freeware DDT Visual Designers for Powerbasic and they did include a very reasonable license. But I still maintain control of the software.
It is easy for those who haven't worked hard on a project to recommend Open Source, since they didn't put all the work into it.
Some freeware projects, in early versions, could later become a commercial project in later iterations.
-
I would strongly recommend to NOT create such a drama about o2 licence.
Most of us have o2 source code and can use FB to recompile Oxygen
( i don't have in plan to do such a thing at all even that i know assembler )
Charles stated that is public ...so it is public domain...and ..what ..
also i really doubt that someone know how to change some things in o2 code and that o2
work properly...
Then on Github there are plenty of programs with source and ForkIt ..you can
of course 80% of program presented there are just experiments and work as crap or are useless for anything.
beeep ;D
-
It would be sad if we never knew who created the Mona Lisa.
-
Many thanks for all your views.
I think the MIT licence is adequate, and a compiler is not an easy rip-off anyway.
Copyright <YEAR> <COPYRIGHT HOLDER>
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
-
Thanks Charles!
I knew you would make the right decision on this critical aspect of an open source project like yours.
-
It would be sad if we never knew who created the Mona Lisa.
In the Louvre, there is a spacious hall anteceding the relatively small cubicle that hosts the Mona Lisa portrait behind a sheet of bullet proof glass.
There are a few dozens of Leonardo's other paintings hanging on the walls in that hall. Most paintings are portraits of Leonardo's contemporaries of both genders, individually and in groups. The portrait sizes vary greatly from as small as the Mona Lisa itself up to really huge ones, perhaps several square yards each.
And you know what? All the human faces painted in the portraits are spitting images of Mona Lisa's "unique" face and smile. Evidently, that particular face type was the one Leonardo was able to depict best of all.
So, it wouldn't be too difficult to attribute the Mona Lisa to its genuine author had Leonardo overlooked to sign the portrait with his own hand. :D
-
There should be a contest with the winner being who can expose the most undocumented features O2 offers that Chares keeps a secret unless asked.
-
Derivative works :)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Duchamp%2C_LHOOQ%2C_1919.png)
Marcel Duchamp
-
You must have hit a milestone. Humor has returned.
-
Permission is hereby granted [...] to [..] merge, publish, distribute [...] subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
Charles, i am thinking that since you are still actively working on Oxygen, there is a high chance that
one of the updates breaks some of the functionality that i have already tested, taking me unaware of
it.
I would like to merge your dll, into mine, to make 100% sure that the code i am generating is exactly
what the version of Oxygen can handle, and making sure it is already tested.
According to your licensing, is this possible? and if so, how can the above copyright notice be included
in substantial portions of the software if it is in DLL form?
-
Looks like O2 is getting a new wardrobe. :)
-
Brian,
If you want to merge DLLs, that is fine, but it will have to be a version of the self-compiled o2, since the DLL you are currently using is written in FreeBasic, and also it won't have the updates.
The license notice should go somewhere in your public documentation. The main purpose is to provide attribution so that other developers can refer back to o2. It's like having a citation in an academic paper.
-
Maybe that will have to wait. I am hoping i can compile PluriBASIC to 64 bit using itself one day.
In the meantime, a separate dll will do. Of course there is already a dialog stating the copyright
notice and the permission notice. :)
Thanks!