CiscOS licence

[Sazhen86]

I've been playing around with the M68K co-processor in b-em and see that CiscOS is included. I was considering making a few changes to CiscOS to fix a few bugs, but I looked at the licence file and it contains:

THIS PACKAGE COMES WITH ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY WHATSOEVER. If you break something, the only one responsible is YOU!

You may not do anything with this package. If you do decide to do anything with this package:
* pleae acknowledge the original author(s)
* modification and distribution must be open/free (no BSD license)
* modification must have a clear changelog
* the original code, and/or all or any changes/updates etc. to this code, may only be sold after explcit authorisation from the author(s)
* I reserve the right to change the license in the future if I want to

Sounds complicated? It probably isn't I'll figure out an appropiate open source license some time later. Until then, just remember the first line in this license file: no warranty whatsoever.

"You may not do anything with this package" seems pretty final.

Does anyone know anything about this? Is this why the code is #define'd out in b-em?

[BigEd]

Looks to me like it really needs a standard open source license - whichever one the author favours.

[dominicbeesley]

I think the sent after that negates the possibly unintentional not!?

Ask jgh I think he has a hand in the original CiscOs. Which I forked then rewrote with some hints from him though mine wasn't in any way finished our suitable for the 2nd processor.

D

[Sazhen86]

Looks to me like it really needs a standard open source license - whichever one the author favours.

That would be good. I'm guessing it wouldn't be a BSD license, which is fair. I'd be happy with GPL to keep it open and free.

I think the sent after that negates the possibly unintentional not!?

Ask jgh I think he has a hand in the original CiscOs. Which I forked then rewrote with some hints from him though mine wasn't in any way finished our suitable for the 2nd processor.

I was also thinking that the 'not' may have been unintentional, although it does make a rather large difference to the meaning!

I have no intention of doing anything with the code other than playing around with it for personal enjoyment and possibly sharing any useful changes with the community. I imagine I'm good for the personal part, I'm just not sure about the sharing part.

If JGH reads this, I'd appreciate any insights.

[atsampson]

I wondered if perhaps there was a word missing, and it was meant to be something like "You may not do anything illegal with this package".

Or maybe it's just a question of emphasis. "You may not do anything with this package. But if you do..."

Either way, a standard open source license would be a better choice - as written it's not possible to distribute, modify or use the software.

("And you may tell yourself, this is not my beautiful Kickstart. And you may tell yourself, this is not my beautiful TOS...")

[1024MAK]

The way I read it, it’s written to be tongue in cheek.

As long as you are not selling a modified version, I don’t think there would be a problem with you making modifications, bug fixes, improvements, and then making your version available at no charge.

Mark

[BigEd]

Both points of view seem valid to me: practically, use the software, as it broadly looks like it has a usable license. Pedantically, don't use the software, because the text is self-contradictory and not a license.

But in either case, the problem is not in using the software, but in distributing it, presumably as part of a larger work.

I've seen various examples of people trying to do their own legal work, and it really doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Just pick a license, preferably one which is held to be open-source, and preferably one which is held to be compatible with many others.

[hoglet]

Eelco is a member of this forum (though he hasn't visited for a few years):
memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=10381

Why not try to contact him by sending a PM?

[Sazhen86]

Eelco is a member of this forum (though he hasn't visited for a few years):
memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=10381

Why not try to contact him by sending a PM?

Thanks for letting me know. It’s been 5 years, but maybe he’s still around. I’ll give a PM a try.