2 Feb 2004 15:55
2 Feb 2004 17:11
Re: License
Mattia Tristo disse: > Hi to all, > i have read the issue 23 newsletter article entitled > "Divisions > of Pain" and i think that the GPL license is more "secure". What about > making a survey on what license OpenBeOS has to use and take a > democratic decision based on the survey? No. Yeah, that was blunt but this is the only possible answer to that. We, the developers working on the OpenBeOS project, decided a long time ago we would use the BSD/MIT license. That won't change. In fact, I am really glad we decided to go this way. -Bruno
2 Feb 2004 16:16
2 Feb 2004 17:56
Re: License
I find the wording particularly interesting. What do you mean by "secure"? I would guess probably not the computer security meaning. The usual complaint that people have about MIT/BSD (with respect to GPL) is that people might come along and "steal" our code and use it in a commerical product. Is this your concern? If it is, let me state clearly: "Let Them!". In any case, the amount of time and effort to re-license our 2 million lines of code from (guessing) 40 different authors would not be worthwhile without some radically earth shaking news. On 2004-02-02 at 09:55:04 [-0500], Mattia Tristo wrote: > Hi to all, > i have read the issue 23 newsletter article entitled "Divisions > of Pain" and i think that the GPL license is more "secure". What about making > a survey on what license OpenBeOS has to use and take a democratic decision > based on the survey? > > > Mattia
3 Feb 2004 00:39
Re: License
Michael Phipps wrote: > I find the wording particularly interesting. What do you mean by "secure"? I > would guess probably not the computer security meaning. The usual complaint > that people have about MIT/BSD (with respect to GPL) is that people might > come along and "steal" our code and use it in a commerical product. Is this > your concern? Yeees! I want to help a friend to implement a large distributed system! And what better way than relying on a modified BHandler/BLooper/BMessage/BMessenger architecture? It's PERFECT! > If it is, let me state clearly: "Let Them!". Yeeeeees, LET them!Adi.
3 Feb 2004 07:15
initialize_before, _init, etc.
Hello all,
There's been some discussion on the net list about a problem stemming from a situation where
initialize_before wasn't called when a library was loaded. I figured it was worth starting a
thread in the main list about it since it seems to be something that we should (all) discuss. In
particular it seems that we can't generally rely on initialize_before. It's not particular portable.
(read: at all) I thought maybe we could use these macros from kernel/image.h:
#define B_INIT_BEFORE_FUNCTION_NAME "initialize_before"
#define B_INIT_AFTER_FUNCTION_NAME "initialize_after"
#define B_TERM_BEFORE_FUNCTION_NAME "terminate_before"
#define B_TERM_AFTER_FUNCTION_NAME "terminate_after"
But you can't very well write anything like this:
void B_INIT_BEFORE_FUNCTION_NAME (void)
{
....
}
Because the name is quoted. I tried looking a bit on the net about this, and in particular I looked
for _init and _fini. I found an interesting message:
http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool/2001-03/msg00017.html
... which recommended the use of __attribute__((constructor)) and __attribute__((destructor)) I
did not test these on our gcc.
I think we should come up with one strategy for doing this and hopefully it will be one that we
can reasonably port to other architectures, eh? Recommendations? Maybe even just a set of
(Continue reading)
3 Feb 2004 08:40
Re: License
I am a professional software developer, and some time ago i had to implement a crc32 checksum algorithm on an embedded DSP. i had to search the net for some time to find an implementation that was not GPL. GPL was unacceptable because it was a proprietary application. Vice versa i don't mind if people use my public code and use it in their application when they need it. To me the BSD/MIT license is the real FREE software license. > > If it is, let me state clearly: "Let Them!". > Yeeeeees, LET them!
3 Feb 2004 10:48
Writing an Audio Driver
I was thinking I need to develop for my own good and I thought a sound driver would be make the most difference to me. I was looking to write a sound card driver for my chipset Realtek ALC650 (an AC'97 device). Remember I have a second install that I play on. I hoped that I could copy over the audio stuff from a openbeos build but the audio_module crashed from a media_addon whatsit. Is the audio driver interface the same? should I try moving the media kir? I have scoured bedrivers and I was wondering if there was anymore to start (besides the AC'97 stuff in the repository) ??? http://greetings.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Greetings Send your love online with Yahoo! Greetings - FREE!
3 Feb 2004 11:55
Re: Writing an Audio Driver
Hi Matt, AC97 devices usually are managed by a motherboard chipset. We have now Intel based (possibly nForce and SiS as well) and Via based audio southbridge devices handled in CVS. If yours doesn't work, support should be added in one of these existing drivers (auvia, ich). You should identify your audio device by its PCI vendor id/device id (in the Devices preference panel). You should then know which driver can handle your device, and verify it is well handled. Hope it helps, Jérôme Selon Mat Hounsell <mat_geek@...>: > I was thinking I need to develop for my own good and I thought a sound > driver > would be make the most difference to me. > > I was looking to write a sound card driver for my chipset Realtek ALC650 (an > AC'97 device). > > Remember I have a second install that I play on. > > I hoped that I could copy over the audio stuff from a openbeos build but the > audio_module crashed from a media_addon whatsit. Is the audio driver > interface > the same? should I try moving the media kir? >(Continue reading)
3 Feb 2004 12:29
Re: License
>I find the wording particularly interesting. What do you mean by "secure"? I
>would guess probably not the computer security meaning. The usual complaint
>that people have about MIT/BSD (with respect to GPL) is that people might
>come along and "steal" our code and use it in a commerical product. Is this
>your concern?
Yes, something like this.
>If it is, let me state clearly: "Let Them!".
Yes, why not, but what i was thinking is that it's a great thing to have a
lot of user but it is also a great thing to have a community that grows
always.
>In any case, the amount of time and effort to re-license our 2 million lines
>of code from (guessing) 40 different authors would not be worthwhile without
>some radically earth shaking news.
Ah, i didn't know that change license would be a big work.
Mattia
RSS Feed