Ain't much left of my reputation...

[Martin Iturbide]

Note: This is posted on the Off Topic discussions, so you are warned about it

Today I feel a little bit demoralize when I get an email that told me "Not everything which is not open source is evil." and explained to me that close source software is not immorall. This was because I refereed a lot to the IBM DDK license as the "Evil IBM DDK license".

Maybe this is a stupid topic (so, if you consider it stupid there is no need to read it or reply, just move on), but I don't consider close source code software bad or unethical, otherwise I will not be using eCS-OS2 at all. I also do not consider people unethical for not sharing their source code. Also, I'm not communist    ...I just work growing potatoes in my back yard like everybody should be doing (just kidding).

Here at Ecuador there is the strong arm of the "Free Software Foundation" in Latin America, which considers close source software immoral. I took a step out of that guys (which are good guys) long time ago since I was considering it wrong (and dumb) for people to feel superior to other because they were moral for using free software. Plus it does not make any sense to qualify people for the software they use or the software license they put to their code.  So, it is sad to me to get this kind of emails reminding me that it is not immoral to use the IBM DDK license.

Since I took a stand a long time ago and became an open source promoter/fan/apologist/evangelist, I consider the IBM DDK License "evil" for open source. That license is bad for open source because it does not allows you to open source any derivative work.  Calling it evil is just a way to "market" that license to advice the open source supporters not to use it. I don't refer that people are bad or unethical for using it. Also, IBM's employee are no bad either for creating it.

Maybe I was hard when I said that "Close source software is future abandonware", it is bad for marketing if you are selling software, but I sticking to that words. Some day, eventually, days, years, centuries, the company or individual will stop supporting it, and since it didn't have a public source code, or clear rules what to do with it, it will turn into abandonware. While open source software have clear rules that allows developer to keep working on that software without depending on a single individual or corporation.

So, I'm sorry if some driver developers got upset because I started to call the "IBM DDK License" as evil, but it didn't intended to be an insult or discredit to that people. But it should be consider to only use the IBM DDK code only when is really, really necessary, since this license is very old fashion and it not complaint with the open source licensing concept.  If there are people that still do not believe in open source after all the good things that collaboration brought us and didn't want to recognize that we are still using OS/2 today thanks to open source software, I'm sorry, it may mean that I was not good enough promoting that model, but it does not mean that people that do not believe in open source are immorall.

And if there is any Illuminati Brotherhood talking in secret at my back saying that I'm a crazy "Free Software/Richard Stallman Zelot" there is no need for it. My reputation online starts and ends on the OS/2 community and if I leave today nobody will remember me tomorrow. No harm can be done, this fishbowl is not that big 

Regards

[Martin Iturbide]

Here it goes to freak out the Illuminati Brotherhood.

[Sergey Posokhov]

Is it possible to buy sources from IBM, or, at least, ask the how does it costs?

[danielnez1]

Is it possible to buy sources from IBM, or, at least, ask the how does it costs?

For Warp 4, I don't think it is feasible given the amount of Microsoft code in the sources. Perhaps Workplace OS,  Workplace Shell and SOM would be more feasible but still unlikely. Of course for a commercial company, everything is for sale at the right price, and to make it worthwhile for IBM (i.e. to get staff to audit the code, strip out or get consent to include 3rd party code and finally for their legal team to OK it), I'd imagine we'd be talking about a serious amount of money from at least $500k up to millions.

[Neil Waldhauer]

I think your estimate is low by 100 x. It's not just Microsoft, but other companies that no longer exist, but hold the rights. Read "Who Says Elephants Can't Dance?" for the whole story of why IBM did what they did.

It would be cheaper to write it again from scratch.

Patching what's left seems like the best strategy. Thanks to all the developers who are busy doing that.

I'm also thinking about SNAP, where Mensys has the source code, but no one has stepped forward to update it. If we can't use the source to recompile one video driver, then why would the source code to the whole operating system help?

[ivan]

Neil, regarding SNAP, the question is will Mensys allow the source out of their hands so that an independent developer can try to update it - I get the impression no.

[Doug Bissett]

Neil, regarding SNAP, the question is will Mensys allow the source out of their hands so that an independent developer can try to update it - I get the impression no.

From what I have heard, Snap is lower on the todo list than a lot of other things (and I do agree with that). Apparently, it will be addressed after other, more important, things are done. Then, it will likely just be to retrofit some of the Panorama updates into it, and not to add acceleration for newer devices (although that might happen, if it turns out to be relatively easy).

Today, we do have two video drivers, Snap, and Panorama, (three if you count Gradd, which is really the base for the other two). I think that all systems will work with one, or the other. On the other hand, we desperately need WiFi drivers, and to a lesser extent, USB 3.0. Like it, or not, it is probably the same two, or three, developers who will do all of them. They can't be in two places at the same time, and still do a good job.

[Martin Iturbide]

Maybe Snap can have some hope. Any other company can make a deal with Alt Richmond Inc. to get redistribution permission. But I don't know if the Snap source code is contaminated with the same terms of the IBM DDK license.