Author Topic: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation  (Read 38643 times)

ivan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1557
  • Karma: +17/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion about Open Soure - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #15 on: August 27, 2014, 05:51:41 pm »
Martin, I would like to make a point about OS/2 in an engineering/business situation.

Note I said OS/2 not eCS.  We maintain OS/2 and the associated equipment in a reasonably large engineering enterprise.  We have mentioned using eCS to our clients and their reply has always been 'is it certified for use with our machine-tools' and there is the stumbling block.  We are permitted to use open source ports where we have access to the source code and will move their office over to using AOO4 when we finish our testing (at the moment they are using Describe but it is showing its age now because it is closed source).

If the community were able to produce an open source clone of OS/2 I know of a number of engineering operations that would move over to using it because, in most cases the certification problem wouldn't arise and the Linux control programs for the new machine-tools could be ported over to OS/2 (we have one client having that done at the moment because they have to replace a major machine in their production line and they decided to stay with OS/2 rather than change to an OS/2 - Linux combination, stick with what has worked well for the past 20 years). 

From what I see of Eugene's work the Microsoft comment is not out of place because of their usual 'embrace, extend, extinguish' working practice.  I hesitate to say more as I don't want to continue the argument.

Martin Iturbide

  • OS2World NewsMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4710
  • Karma: +41/-1
  • Your Friend Wil Declares...
    • View Profile
    • Martin's Personal Blog
Re: Discussion about Open Soure - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #16 on: August 27, 2014, 06:25:54 pm »
Quote
* XWorkPlace.. As I remember, there was XFile WPS extender (XFolder + WarpEnhancer + XPager). and XWorkPlace was developed with the support of Serenity Systems. It was impossible develop this project without this investments. There was D-Day, there was collaboration with eCS developers, short terms to complete the project. This is the example of open sourced program ordered and supported by the commercial company.
Sorry but I think your are wrong. XWorkplace was fully developed by Ulrich and Serenity used it for eComStation. Paul Ratcliffe took charge of it (can't know for sure if it was since version 1.0) and made a good job patching it. There was also help from Yuri Dario,  Christian Hennecke and others. I don't know they payrolls to if it was made at their own time or paid.  There is a Serenity and Mensys investment on patching it, but if XWorkplace was not open sourced on the first place, I doubt we will have it today as an important component.

But the way - http://xtracker.xworkplace.org/ is down.

Quote
* Piano Launchpad doesn't use GPL or other code. It was developed by our professional WPS developer. Of course, we have read the examples from hobbes.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. You are not using GPL, agreed. But Pianopad is based in BlubblePad which is open source BSD license. It is legal to make a derivative work of BSD software and close the source code, but It will be better to open source it to allow the project grow.

Quote
* One more time: we all agree that open source is good, it's easy to maintain, fix. Main question to you: who will pay for open sourcing? For open sourcing of existing apps. For creation of new and open sourced?

You need to switch from a "Selling license" model to a "Selling services" model.
- Offer paid support
- Offer to develop/port open source software for a money target (Bitwise works)
- Find a corporate sponsor and help them with OS/2 on their business charging money for it. You will not get money "millions" from the community, there is not enough mass to charge for a massive product.
- Understand that this is a dying platform, and squeezing money from users will not save it. There are not much possibilities to save it if we don't collaborate to open source the close source components of it.

Eugene, but what I will like to you do is to open source your software and start working on a little part on the "dream" of having a full open source OS/2. I can not assure that it will be a good or bad decision, but the platform is dying and we need to pull all efforts on having source code that we can re-use in a legal way and loose the control of a single company or individual.

You are going to leave this community one day, just like me, It is just that we don't know when. I don't want to leave abandoware and copyrights behind that will not allow the platform to grow in the future.  Think about that, are you here to make money? or are you help to help the community? If you want to make money, go the people that have money like corporation and compete to get money from there. If you want to help the platform you are welcome here, but (sadly) there is no money on the "end consumer market" for OS/2.
Martin Iturbide
OS2World NewsMaster
... just share the dream.

Sergey Posokhov

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
  • Karma: +8/-6
    • View Profile
    • OS/2 API Research
Re: Discussion about Open Soure - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #17 on: August 27, 2014, 06:49:05 pm »
It would need reverse engineering...
And I did it ;) At least for Presentation Manager.

Martin Iturbide

  • OS2World NewsMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4710
  • Karma: +41/-1
  • Your Friend Wil Declares...
    • View Profile
    • Martin's Personal Blog
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #18 on: August 27, 2014, 07:03:34 pm »
Hi Sergey

I got a question about it, I don't know if you can help me.

I want to know this, but I don't know if this are dumb questions.
1) How can I discover which DLL has a PM function... for example where it is "WinCopyObject()" ?
2) or viceversa, how can an say a .DLL on OS/2, let me know which functions can I use from you?

It may be very basic, but since I don't have programming skills I don't know about it.

Thanks
Martin Iturbide
OS2World NewsMaster
... just share the dream.

Sergey Posokhov

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
  • Karma: +8/-6
    • View Profile
    • OS/2 API Research
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #19 on: August 27, 2014, 07:10:55 pm »
How can I discover which DLL has a PM function... for example where it is "WinCopyObject()" ?

My Hiew.exe told me that it is PMWP.dll

or viceversa, how can an say a .DLL on OS/2, let me know which functions can I use from you?

It's even possible to explore which functions has been used by FC/2 to do charset conversions (and now we know which functions are "more standard than others").

dbanet

  • Guest
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #20 on: August 27, 2014, 07:12:11 pm »
1) How can I discover which DLL has a PM function... for example where it is "WinCopyObject()" ?

Just search all DLLs on the system for "wincopyobject". The one that have that symbol in its file is most likely the needed one...



UPD: Well, if the function is exported by name, not ordinal.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2014, 07:25:45 pm by Boris »

Sigurd Fastenrath

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • Karma: +27/-0
  • OS/2 Versus Hardware - Maximum Warp!
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion about Open Soure - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #21 on: August 27, 2014, 09:18:16 pm »
Quote
I am wondering how long one can ride the dead horse...

Wow a missed that one.. in my case, how long can you have a hobbie? Months? Years? a Lifetime?

I started to think that time is not important for the ones that are here for fun and do not have a business model with OS/2. This is a community site, while it remains fun we are going to still hang out here :)

For me the hobby seems to be a Lifetimejob...  ;)  The 5 years I mentioned are my expactations for some kind of modern hardware, OS/2 itself will allways stay on some of my hardware - i.e. I just bought for very small money a Thinkpad 365ED with a Cyrix 586 (in reality it was still a 486 - but Intel did not had the copyright for 586 so they called those "Pentium"... so long ago...  ::)  )  - I want to repair it and want to install Warp connect or Warp 4 on it  :D

I did the same with the Thinkpad 701c Butterfly and the X41, the X200 Tablet and even the Transnote...  ;)

I like to be around here very much, this forum is really great. I try to contribute as much as I can - and therefore ride the dead horse as long as possible...  ::)
« Last Edit: August 27, 2014, 10:09:04 pm by Sigurd Fastenrath »

agena

  • Guest
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #22 on: August 27, 2014, 09:44:49 pm »
Hello,

the thread on closed vs. open source is very interesting.

As I am quite new to this forum, I should remain silent - but I cannot:

I think it is okay to earn a living by developing and selling software.

It is even better to make the sources publically available, otherwise I would
have never managed to develop an own programming language.

What I learned lately is that the author of a Windows 8+ `start-up button`
extension decided to close his sources for he found out that others took his
MIT-licence sources, designed different icons, and dared to sell his application
under different programme names.

Also projects that offer an open source version of their application but demand
a lot of money for the bug-free edition are questionable.

Concerning larger applications I really liked the then Sun Microsystems licence of
Solaris 10: free for private and educational use, with costs for commercial usage.

Alex

Martin Iturbide

  • OS2World NewsMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4710
  • Karma: +41/-1
  • Your Friend Wil Declares...
    • View Profile
    • Martin's Personal Blog
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #23 on: August 27, 2014, 10:46:11 pm »
What I learned lately is that the author of a Windows 8+ `start-up button`
extension decided to close his sources for he found out that others took his
MIT-licence sources, designed different icons, and dared to sell his application
under different programme names.

That is an interesting case. That is why everybody needs to know which open source license to apply and understand that this can happens.... and it is not illegal at all.

But there are people that do not get upset when this happens. They goal is to share the code and knowledge, and if other party is making money with you code is because they were smart enough to have a business model with it, it does not mean they are ripping you off. Plus, since it is open source, they do not have the exclusivity of the product. Other can grab the original source code and reproduce the thing that other are selling. If you are making a good open source software, and other is smart enough to sell it, why don't talk about it and try to work together, instead of having hard feeling and close the source code.  The smart salesman can help you getting funding and he can pay you to fix bugs and maintain the software.

On the other side I know other history with VLC which I think it was worst. There was a group that started to grab the same VLC source code, untouch, bundle it with a lot of Ad-ware, put it online under other name and started an aggressive marketing campaign to get users to download their software.  They made some money, but after a while people find about it and even VideoLan complained.  But at last VideoLan was the group with the skills and the other "Ad-Ware player" got lost in time... they made some money but dissipated in the long term.

So, knowing the open source license is a good thing to do. Understanding the GNU GPL, BSD licensing and the concepts of copyleft is a good start.

Regards.

Martin Iturbide
OS2World NewsMaster
... just share the dream.

agena

  • Guest
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #24 on: August 27, 2014, 11:11:06 pm »
Hi,

Martin wrote: `That is an interesting case [on the Win8+ start menu application]`.

Please read: classicshell.net/faq/#general_oss

Ivo Beltchev's essence is: `Some people have taken the code wholesale and are selling their own copies of the start menu with little to no modification. While this is allowed under the licensing terms, it was against the spirit of my intent.`

Alex
« Last Edit: August 27, 2014, 11:16:03 pm by Alexander Walz »

Martin Iturbide

  • OS2World NewsMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4710
  • Karma: +41/-1
  • Your Friend Wil Declares...
    • View Profile
    • Martin's Personal Blog
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #25 on: August 27, 2014, 11:38:34 pm »
Interesting...

Quote
Is Classic Shell open-source?
Versions before 3.9.0 are open-source. The source code can be downloaded from Source Forge.

Starting with version 3.9.0, Classic Shell is no longer open-source. There are couple of reasons for that change.
The initial intent of making Classic Shell open-source was to provide other developers with solutions to common problems - how to build a shell extension, how to create a custom-looking menu, etc. Over time, the code has become more and more complex and is solving more and more narrow problems. Its educational value has diminished substantially. The only thing you can learn from the source code is how to build a very similar software. Which brings me to the second reason - some people have taken the code wholesale and are selling their own copies of the start menu with little to no modification. While this is allowed under the licensing terms, it was against the spirit of my intent.

In this case, I think there should be another option, instead of putting the software under a liberal licese like the MIT which can be close sourced, why don't put it under a copyleft license like GNU GPL. That will force the developers that change the code to share the source code. On this case, even that if other party is making money with your software, anybody will have access to the source code to duplicate the work. This is one of reasson why Linux growed so much, until it became interesting to corporations.

I remember that some time ago I didn't like copyleft licenses like GNU GPL, until some guy on the forum told me to start looking the GNU GPL as the wish of the developer to have their software always open and to keep growing in time. It is an interesting point of view and I like the GNU GPL  license too.
Martin Iturbide
OS2World NewsMaster
... just share the dream.

agena

  • Guest
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #26 on: August 28, 2014, 12:03:01 am »
Hi,

I do not think it is fair to take MIT sources and convert the project based on them to this virus-like GPL.

The effort, however, is significant: studying legal comments on mixing sources with different licences,
publishing separated source trees accordingly, searching days for MIT C solutions (`hopefully this one fits
to MIT`), studying complicated math books to develop code for math functions although respective GPL C
implementations have been existing already for a long time and which are much better, etc.

Alex
« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 12:11:06 am by Alexander Walz »

Martin Iturbide

  • OS2World NewsMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4710
  • Karma: +41/-1
  • Your Friend Wil Declares...
    • View Profile
    • Martin's Personal Blog
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #27 on: August 28, 2014, 12:32:00 am »
I do not think it is fair to take MIT sources and convert the project based on them to this virus-like GPL.

It is legal to do that. To say it is fair or not is a personal opinion. We can not say that people that support GPL are good or bad. It is a license and developer and users use it under their will.

I can also say that is not fair to use BSD code create an close source OS (NeXTSTEP was based on the Mach kernel and BSD, later NeXTSTEP was converted into Mac OS X). But that was complete legal according to the BSD license, and again, that is a personal opinion.

So we have:
- Copyleft: virus-like GPL license.... called the virus of love by some :)
- Liberal: BSD and MIT license.
- Super close source licenses.

For somethings I prefer GPL. And I complete understand when a developer decide that his software or any derivative work they do they want to turn it GNU GPL. Because they want other people to use their source code (for money or free), but source code must always be shared and distributed under the same conditions for everyone.

Martin Iturbide
OS2World NewsMaster
... just share the dream.

guzzi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 331
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #28 on: August 28, 2014, 12:43:59 am »
My 2 cents:

There are several business models and all of them have their own pros and cons. Bitwaise works, as far as I know, develops/ports open source software, collecting money in advance and during development to pay for the developer and of course to hopefully generate some profit. They also sell closed source software, like Injoy Firewall. Ecomstation.ru or ecosoft invests in developing software and then sells licenses, basically advancing the developments costs. There is nothing wrong with that. It's a complety valid way to produce and sell software. They also have done similar work as Bitwise, developing software paid by third parties. In this case the other parties most likely decided the software should be closed source.
It is true that open sourcing has several advantages for the community, like Martin has stated. It is not neccessarily true that there are advantages for the developer. In the case of the developer advancing the development costs, there is in fact a huge disadvantage in open sourcing, namely someone else using the code and selling it too, without having to invest. No sane person running a company would invite that.
Closed source abandonware, yes, that is a problem. The example Martin gave, the sad demise of the developer and the resultant loss of the code, can easily be corrected. It's just a matter of  a decent will). And as Eugene stated, he seems to have made some provisions for that by licensing the code to his subcontractors.

Generally, I like open source better, but we have to remember that we all have to buy our bread and preferably some cheese to put on it. There are several ways to make money still in developing os/2 stuff, everybody is free to choose the way how to do that. 'a 90's model' still works today, to a lesser extent perhaps, but is does. Selling services and support can even be complementary to that. The one does not exclude the other.

Lastly, the ongoing 'war' between Eugene and some others, and between Sigurd and Eugene that keeps coming up here and on several other fora and news groups. Please guys, keep it civil. I do not like the way Eugene accuses others of piracy without giving any proof. In fact, I do not even see how the development of the OS/4 kernel, legally questionable as it is, can harm his business. On the contrary, if the developers of it only distribute the kernel, it might even be good for his business if it makes eCS run on more hardware. As for Sigurd, it is nonsense that all ecosoft sotware is 'bad'. I do use ecosoft software and am very happy with some of the software I bought from them. Especially the stuff developed by Glassman. On several occasions he has corrected minor bugs or added features, some major additions, on my request, usually very fast.
Lets discuss matters as adults, not as little children.

Olafur Gunnlaugsson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 244
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion about Open Source - Was: eCS 2.2 C API documentation
« Reply #29 on: August 28, 2014, 05:14:51 am »
I do not think it is fair to take MIT sources and convert the project based on them to this virus-like GPL.

I can also say that is not fair to use BSD code create an close source OS (NeXTSTEP was based on the Mach kernel and BSD, later NeXTSTEP was converted into Mac OS X). But that was complete legal according to the BSD license, and again, that is a personal opinion.

OS/2 PPC is based on the Mach kernel as well, most TCP/IP stacks were originally based on BSD code, includin most implementations that are now GPL, there is nothing dihonest about that, that is how the BSD lisence is intended to function.

What is dishonest is the tendency of GPL maintainers to strip the credits of the original programmers from the GPL'd code and only mention the "politically correct" later maintainers.

P.S. The mach kernel is a big pile of poo and one of the major minuses of the Mac OS. It was originally designed to take advantage of the fast context switching that PDP's, 68xxx and some early RISC processors offered, that made it torelable on 68030+ and PPC processors. That it is now only available on ARM and x86 which are both notoriusly slow at context switching is piss yourself funny.