I like that approach, we should sell it to the RISC OS "Open" guys... "RISC OS Other" is a so much better (and far more truthful) titleI should also say that 'Other' is a catchall
Thanks. It is only here so I can make sure I have one of everythingsimoni wrote:I like that approach, we should sell it to the RISC OS "Open" guys... "RISC OS Other" is a so much better (and far more truthful) titleI should also say that 'Other' is a catchall
Seriously though; good work on the list, it's nice to see all the info in one place.
I think because open source software is usually free in monetary terms it is easy to conflate the two but for me the difference is about the ability to make adaptations and not be dependent on the goodwill of someone else to make them for me because that person or company is the only one with access to the source code or design details.Elminster wrote:Also you notice when doing the list it is a bit ambiguous, there are many items that are open source but people make a profit off of them, and items that are closed source that are done for cost price. And many in between. (Hence splitting out the license type and the Org Type). And also there are about 20 different open source license. Splitting the projects out into 'good' and 'bad' seems like a world of pain as seen by the open vs closed source debates over the last 20 years.
It's not 'political', it's legal. Unfortunately, in this day and age of copyrights and patents, you have to use the unfair laws against themselves if you'd like your creativity to be shared and continue to be shared. I'd advise a few things; release your software with a GPLv3 licence (or similar) and add a creative commons 'share-alike' license to any associated artwork and secondly, put your schematics and code on github (github is a little confusing to begin with, but there are some nice clients available that make it all simple).So, if any lists on which my stuff appear are to include this political spin
Agreed. Working in the commercial IT world as I do I go for Neutral(ish) and using right product for the job, be i open or not. It is never free either way and it is usually cost and security that customers are more worried about (And whether open source is more secure and cost less is another one of them bubbling along debates). And gets even more confusing once you add in that most commercialy supported products have some element of open source code in them somewhere. But agree with Simoni, it is worth getting a basic understanding, there is no right or wrong answer just shades of garish Acorn mode 7 pallette.BigEd wrote:One problem with this question is that people feel strongly about it. For the purpose of this project, it's good to be informative but otherwise neutral.
That is more or less what the 'other' column is. Well it is really a dodge. It means. 'Dont know', 'Openish but no license','Closedish but free to use/modify if you can work out how','Based on other open source' and anything else I can think of.Perhaps one way to approach it is to change the presentation:
- a column for 'sources available', 'Yes' or 'No' (or 'Some')
- a column for 'open source license', 'Yes' or '-' (or '?')
Sort of what I had envisaged the Active column to do. So the columns are probably all there already, just may need to tweak somehow.BigEd wrote:I'd think of it this way: the point is to answer a question a person might have, not to be technically correct.
People's questions are going to be something like this:
- do I need to pay for this, with an expectation of support (that's the Commercial question)
- can I tinker with this and make my own variations for my own purposes (that's the Source Available question)
- could someone take this, perhaps modify it, and resupply it, perhaps in the case that the original author has lost interest or disappeared (that's the Clear Reusable License question)
There are already lots of footnotes just I havent added them yet. You will notice the *'s all over the place. So already on my todo list that one.BigEd wrote:With careful naming, and some carefully worded footnotes, it should be possible...
Everything I produce is entirely my own and if I ever did want to use someone else's stuff, I would ask permission. If I couldn't get permission then I wouldn't use it. People have asked to use my stuff and I've let them. I've caught a couple of people being naughty on ebay with my stuff over the years so I messaged them, told them they were infringing my IP and that they should cease forthwith. They both did. I'm not ignorant of the law and as an intelligent person, that offends me.Simon wrote:If any of your projects uses or builds upon other open or closed source projects (or you'd like others to build upon your software (or not)) you have to have a base understanding of licensing. "Ignorantia juris non excusat" and all that.
You need to invent something.1024MAK wrote: Now back to the hardware please...
Mark
For the B+ it may be instructive to change the link to this thread: http://www.stardot.org.uk/forums/viewto ... f=3&t=9483Elminster wrote:...
- Added the DIY 64 to 129k BBC B+ hack
...
Seems to get ever longer.davidb wrote:It looks like quite a comprehensive list you have there! I like that you've provided links to forum threads for many of the projects.
Here are some of my hardware projects:
davidb wrote:It looks like quite a comprehensive list you have there! I like that you've provided links to forum threads for many of the projects.
Here are some of my hardware projects:
I don't know why that is. Perhaps it's because I've never produced the boards. Feel free to drop the broken links.Elminster wrote:Added, but the last two AISLER URLs are broken and giving 404s.
