In article <4f8d64e461invalid-email-addr...@invalid-domain.co.uk>, Paul Vigay
<invalid-email-addr...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote: > In a dim and distant universe <4f8d63f924j...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John > Cartmell <j...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> enlightened us thusly: [Snippety snip] > Like I said
<advert snipped>
OK I understand. You wanted to advertise your point of view so attached it to a posting about something else. Please don't repeat with another ad! ;-(
-- John Cartmell j...@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.qercus.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
How quickly some people can degenarate a thread. :-(
Less than 24 hours ago I asked a couple of serious questions, and now this thread has degenerated into a snarling match about who done what/why and to whom in the past.
We saw all the polarized garbage in the past discussions, until our eyes and minds were weary of the subject.
I don't care who done what/why and to whom in the past, this SARPC is getting very old (13) and occasionally has little fits, so I have to wonder, where to next... I do have a Win Laptop with VRPC SA installed and working... Yadayadayada!
On 9-Apr-2008, Paul Stewart <paulstew...@phawfaux.co.uk> wrote:
> "I heard a rumour" (song by Bananarama) about the legal spat that took > place was due to Castle having a multi million pound buyer for RISC > OS. But it was lock stock and barrel. This meant disposing of RISC > OS Ltd. Hence the legal letters that went around. Which did not got > rid RISC OS Ltd, just caused more hardship.
You only need the application of a very small amount of logic to realise that can't be true. If there really was such an offer then all Castle had to do to 'dispose of' RISCOS Ltd would be to purchase about 30% of the shares and wind the company up. This would have required an investment of only a small fraction of the 'multi million pound' offer.
It's analogous to someone receiving an extremely attractive offer for a property with a sitting tenant. You just buy out the tenant (unless your name is Rackman - in which case you try violence and intimidation).
On 9 Apr, 16:47, Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:45:25 -0700, Aaron wrote: > > It's only too overloaded because people like yourself and Paul Vigay use > > the term "open source" instead of the correct term(s).
> And I'm sure you speak from a position of extensive experience and > participation in open source and free software communities, having > contributed hundreds of hours of your own time and thousands of lines of > code to them. Your CV must be positively over-flowing with examples of > your organisation, efforts and management of such communities to be able > to pontificate so authoritatively.
Actually I have spent hundreds of hours on "free" software and contributed thousands of lines of code :-)
but not in the last few years:-(
Despite spending time doing this I still managed to read the relevant documents. I also studied contract law and licencing agreements as part of my degree. I also learnt to read :-)
> Parts of CTL's RISC OS source code have been made available to anyone to > view, fork and modify as they so wish. They're just not free to do the > things that free software typically allows.
Making something available does not make it open source - simple fact.
> The confusion people have who are new to this kind of thing are the > motivating factor for organisations like Debian having their own very > carefully worded descriptions of free software (which incidentally, the > ROOL licence fails miserably), and is a huge contributing factor to the > FUD surrounding free and open source software.
Well you aren't new to this, so that doesn't explain your confusion. The situation remains the same. Some parts of the sources to RISC OS 5 are available under a shared source, not open source.
Your Acorn User 1992 level comprehension doesn't alter the facts one jot. You have freely admited in the past that you don't read things, this appears to be yet another case :-(
In article <Ky5Lj.48077$5i5.7...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>, Rob Kendrick
<n...@rjek.com> wrote: > On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:45:25 -0700, Aaron wrote: > > It's only too overloaded because people like yourself and Paul Vigay > > use the term "open source" instead of the correct term(s).
No need for 'term(s)', it's 'terms'.
> Parts of CTL's RISC OS source code have been made available to anyone > to view, fork and modify as they so wish. They're just not free to do > the things that free software typically allows.
Don't argue, just read this, or suggest other people read it if you have.
On 9 Apr 2008 Dave Symes <d...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
> [Snip the lot] > How quickly some people can degenarate a thread. :-( > Less than 24 hours ago I asked a couple of serious questions, and now this > thread has degenerated into a snarling match about who done what/why and > to whom in the past. > We saw all the polarized garbage in the past discussions, until our eyes > and minds were weary of the subject. > I don't care who done what/why and to whom in the past, this SARPC is > getting very old (13) and occasionally has little fits, so I have to > wonder, where to next... I do have a Win Laptop with VRPC SA installed and > working... Yadayadayada!
Well said, Grumpmaster! Where has tolerance gone, O wonder? :-(
With best wishes,
Peter.
-- Peter \ / zfc Er \ Prestbury, Cheltenham, Glos. GL52 Anne \/ __ __ \ England. and / / \ | | |\ | / _ \ http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk family / \__/ \_/ | \| \__/ \______________ pnyo...@ormail.co.uk.
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:37:37 -0700, Aaron wrote: > Actually I have spent hundreds of hours on "free" software and > contributed thousands of lines of code :-)
By free, I mean libre, not dreadful cross-stitch programs given away free on CDs to subscribers :) What have you done, out of interest?
> but not in the last few years:-(
A shame.
> Despite spending time doing this I still managed to read the relevant > documents. I also studied contract law and licencing agreements as part > of my degree. I also learnt to read :-)
But not to spell or form cogent sentences, as some of your recent posts are anything to go by! :)
My argument is thus: "Open source" is a vague and overloaded term, but by the most generous and meaningful definition, anything whose source is available for study can be referred to as such. This leaves the problem that such "shared source" schemes, as well as software whose source is available for security auditing purposes (such as PGP) are also included; which is why we have terms like "free software" and "software libre" to separate them from projects under licences such as the GPL and MIT.
In article <UraLj.60361$jH5.23...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote:
> My argument is thus: "Open source" is a vague and overloaded term, but by > the most generous and meaningful definition, anything whose source is > available for study can be referred to as such.
I agree - if that wasn't the case, what on Earth _is_ the overarching term you can use to describe software whos source is open such that anyone can look at it or contribute changes?
However, I recognise that such concerns don't trouble the average Joe so we've been very careful on the ROOL site to stick to the OSI definition of "Open Source" and not use it when referring to the bulk of the RISC OS sources (although you will find that some of it is GPL, some BSD, etc).
"Shared source" is a horrible term, IMHO. I'd much rather we (all) were realistic in calling open sources "open source" (as opposed to "closed source") and free (libre) software "free software".
Hey ho.
Steve
-- Steve Revill @ Home Note: All opinions expressed herein are my own.
> How quickly some people can degenarate a thread. :-(
> Less than 24 hours ago I asked a couple of serious questions, and now this > thread has degenerated into a snarling match about who done what/why and > to whom in the past.
> We saw all the polarized garbage in the past discussions, until our eyes > and minds were weary of the subject.
Newshound is most capable of resolving this. With my fud killing arrangements there are only 17, and generally sensible, posts in the thread whereas in the raw there are 40.
> I don't care who done what/why and to whom in the past, this SARPC is > getting very old (13) and occasionally has little fits, so I have to > wonder, where to next... I do have a Win Laptop with VRPC SA installed and > working... Yadayadayada!
Where to next, boils down to but few options. The only current fully functioning RISC OS platforms that can be purchased right now are the Iyonix and VRPC on WindowsXP. (I cannot speak for VRPC on Macs as I do not have one and I think I am right to say it is still in beta.)
