Poster | Thread |
deakmann
| |
Re: KHTML for MorphOS - update Posted on 15-Aug-2006 16:48:06
| | [ #41 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 20-Mar-2003 Posts: 360
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @all
Having started reading this thread anyone would think Marcik had ruled out any chance of an OS4 version, but having actually checked his sight nothings really changed. He`s concenttrating on the Morph OS port at this time as always.
Just because the Aweb team enquired about helping him some people assumed they were already working on it when in reality Marcik told them he wanted to finish the MorphOS version first.
No doubt there will be an OS4 version just at the time and place of Marcik`s choosing. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Yabba
| |
Re: KHTML for MorphOS - update Posted on 15-Aug-2006 16:54:28
| | [ #42 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 29-Jan-2004 Posts: 134
From: Unknown | | |
|
| Quote:
If Marcik has decided that all the work he's spent a year on this layer is too valuable to him to give away for free, then I say that's fair enough, provided he complies with the license (after all - a big chunk of it is still someone else's work), which it looks like he is if the KHTML part (not the MOS/MUI layer) is made a shared library. |
Seriously, this is the whole point of GPL/LGPL! If you take something that someone else has spent a long time on and add something you value yourself, then you are required to share your work with others too. If this wasn't the case there would be no khtml sources to begin with. Simple: If you take advantage of someone elses work, be prepared to share your own work too. If you don't like it, then don't use GPL / LGPL sources.
regards, Stefan |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Chain-Q
| |
Re: KHTML for MorphOS - update Posted on 15-Aug-2006 17:21:03
| | [ #43 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 31-Jan-2005 Posts: 824
From: Budapest, Hungary | | |
|
| @Crumb Quote:
Or at least he could send the sources to Chain-Q or any other friend with a microA1 |
Sigh. And here we go again... See my statement on MorphZone.org about this. I said no, and that's still standing, so will you please keep my name out of this discussion? Thanks. _________________ MorphOS, classic Amiga, demoscene, and stuff "When a bridge is not enough, build a Viaduct!" "Strip the Amiga community of speculation and we can fit every forum on a 720k floppy" (by resle)
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Hattig
| |
Re: KHTML for MorphOS - update Posted on 15-Aug-2006 17:28:51
| | [ #44 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 11-Mar-2003 Posts: 340
From: Cambridge, UK | | |
|
| If, as it seems to be the case, the person has written their own closed source application that interfaces to a shared library that is provided under the LGPL, then the person only has to contribute back the changes to the LGPL portion of the application.
If the original library had been under the GPL license he would have had to share all his code. If the library is statically included in his application, he would have had to share all his code.
It isn't as if he distastefully did something such as taking a GPL application, and then run it as its own application and communicate with his own front-end via IPC/pipes/etc. This area is vague, but clearly distasteful and deliberately trying to work around the GPL.
You can argue all you like about the pros and cons of the closed source GUI, but GUIs aren't simple, and in terms of a web browser there's an awful lot of stuff there to code even if your renderer, css and javascript engine are provided in the LGPL libraries. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
pixie
| |
Re: KHTML for MorphOS - update Posted on 15-Aug-2006 18:21:09
| | [ #45 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Mar-2003 Posts: 3115
From: Figueira da Foz - Portugal | | |
|
| Quote:
Seriously, this is the whole point of GPL/LGPL! If you take something that someone else has spent a long time on and add something you value yourself, then you are required to share your work with others too. If this wasn't the case there would be no khtml sources to begin with. |
Q: Is it possible to link lgpl with bsd?
If the answer is yes, there's no discussion, if the answer is no, the very next question would be: How did Nokia been able to do it without no one (ie- FSF) going after them.
There's not really much to add but this...Last edited by pixie on 15-Aug-2006 at 06:30 PM.
_________________ Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home. The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Yabba
| |
Re: KHTML for MorphOS - update Posted on 15-Aug-2006 19:18:11
| | [ #46 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 29-Jan-2004 Posts: 134
From: Unknown | | |
|
| Quite simple: If you link your code + bsd licensed code + lgpl code together then you must publish your code. If you link your code + bsd licensed code then you may keep your sources closed.
Just the fact that there are 2 licenses involved doesn't mean that you can hide yourself behind the lesser restricting license.
If you have a look at the architecture overview provided by Nokia you will see how they comply with the license. They even provide a reference UI for free :)
However, what most people would like to see I guess is the port to AmigaOS, ie all rendering etc. The actual gui is less interesting.
regards, Stefan |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
itix
| |
Re: KHTML for MorphOS - update Posted on 15-Aug-2006 19:26:55
| | [ #47 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 22-Dec-2004 Posts: 3398
From: Freedom world | | |
|
| Quote:
If someone thought they could 'port IBrowse to PPC quickly' then they are in for a surprise. Sorry about that. But if someone could have done this quickly it would have been me and it never happened.
|
Pffft. I'm sure I could port it in less than week
But it is possible to use LGPL'd stuff in closed source development. I.e. KTHML engine could be used in IBrowse too without IBrowse becoming open source. SDL uses LGPL and there are billions of closed source SDL games. Silly discussion especially when there is nothing released... _________________ Amiga Developer Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
pixie
| |
Re: KHTML for MorphOS - update Posted on 15-Aug-2006 19:58:10
| | [ #48 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Mar-2003 Posts: 3115
From: Figueira da Foz - Portugal | | |
|
| If you can link to a licence which by it's own definition allow you to have the source code closed, then you can, period.. otherwise you would then have to choose other license who would forbid it.
Nokia might release their code, but they can explore two things that Marcik can not: a) extended brand recognition b) the hardware it runs on
Well Marcik would obviously get recognition, but not to the same amount as in Nokia _________________ Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home. The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
hnl_dk
| |
Re: KHTML for MorphOS - update Posted on 15-Aug-2006 20:02:05
| | [ #49 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 25-Mar-2003 Posts: 1786
From: Denmark | | |
|
| @itix
Quote:
But it is possible to use LGPL'd stuff in closed source development. I.e. KTHML engine could be used in IBrowse too without IBrowse becoming open source. SDL uses LGPL and there are billions of closed source SDL games. Silly discussion especially when there is nothing released... |
Only if the LGPL library is linked dynamically (a shared library)... and all the sources of that shared library has to be released (all the code - no matter if it is LGPL or BSD)... you are able to use this shared library for close-sources projects... but the sources of the LGPL library has to be released (if requested).
If a company would link the library staticly to their commercial product, would they need to release all of the product. _________________ Best regards, hnl_dk - Henning Nielsen Lund [Denmark]
Please send no PM to me, email me if you want to contact me. See you somewhere else.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
hnl_dk
| |
Re: KHTML for MorphOS - update Posted on 15-Aug-2006 20:06:38
| | [ #50 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 25-Mar-2003 Posts: 1786
From: Denmark | | |
|
| @pixie Have you still not read a word of the license? _________________ Best regards, hnl_dk - Henning Nielsen Lund [Denmark]
Please send no PM to me, email me if you want to contact me. See you somewhere else.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
nine
| |
Re: KHTML for MorphOS - update Posted on 15-Aug-2006 20:13:16
| | [ #51 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 23-Aug-2005 Posts: 132
From: UK | | |
|
| @pixie
Quote:
Q: Is it possible to link lgpl with bsd?
If the answer is yes, there's no discussion, if the answer is no, the very next question would be: How did Nokia been able to do it without no one (ie- FSF) going after them.
There's not really much to add but this... |
Well, quite. I actually own one of the phones that Nokia have produced the browser for, and I haven't taken the time to see if they've actually released the source for the frontend (although the manual does acknowledge the license).
Apple most certainly haven't released the source for their frontend which links to WebKit - the Safari interface itself.
(this point is partly in response to @smithy also)
I'm not trying to belittle the achievement of Marcik either - bravo for taking on what is a fairly mammoth project (see the interview with the original Atheos author who ported KHTML in order to produce a KHTML-based browser for Atheos, now Syllable). My point is more of a moral one: Is it particularly moral for someone to take a whole bunch of people's achievements and good natured 100% opensource project and then dump a closed source interface on the front? Okay, okay, I know Apple have but we can't necessarily live by their example!
(I'm thinking in future I might keep quiet regarding licensing issues ) |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
pixie
| |
Re: KHTML for MorphOS - update Posted on 15-Aug-2006 20:13:17
| | [ #52 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Mar-2003 Posts: 3115
From: Figueira da Foz - Portugal | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
realize
| |
Re: KHTML for MorphOS - update Posted on 15-Aug-2006 20:16:36
| | [ #53 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 14-Apr-2003 Posts: 1797
From: nyc | | |
|
| Yabba
Hmm.. you are so blameless and innocent is that it? Then why is it that you put code in Ibrowse to report MOS as OS4?? Please explain that.
What really makes me laugh is all you guys who said PEgasos and Morphos was the devil and now you are sweating MOS devs and the Peg hardware when you realize where Ainc and A1 got you...
realize Last edited by realize on 15-Aug-2006 at 08:17 PM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
xeron
| |
Re: KHTML for MorphOS - update Posted on 15-Aug-2006 20:48:09
| | [ #54 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 22-Jun-2003 Posts: 2440
From: Weston-Super-Mare, Somerset, England, UK, Europe, Earth, The Milky Way, The Universe | | |
|
| Quote:
Then why is it that you put code in Ibrowse to report MOS as OS4?? Please explain that.
|
That is ridiculous! Stephan didn't put code to report MOS as OS4. He detected exec version >= 50 as OS4 (since OS4.x is V50 and V51 depending on prerelease). The fact that MorphOS copied the Amiga API and decided to use V50 for its exec is not Stephans fault or problem. AFAIK Stephan doesn't have MorphOS (or didn't then) and wouldn't have even known IBrowse reported MOS as OS4.
Quote:
What really makes me laugh is all you guys who said PEgasos and Morphos was the devil and now you are sweating MOS devs and the Peg hardware when you realize where Ainc and A1 got you...
|
I have no idea how the human body could sweat morphos developers and pegasos hardware, I'd imagine it would be a very painful process.
I never said Pegasos and MorphOS were the devil, but I have to say I never liked the attitude, or at least the "online persona" of Bill Buck and a few of Genesi's employees, and at least 2 of the MOS developers (No, I won't expand on that further, since I don't want to say negative things about specific people, especially as this is all pretty much in the past now). I admit, I did let that influence my decision to go with OS4, but really I don't regret it one bit, even if MOS gets a CSS capable browser first.Last edited by xeron on 15-Aug-2006 at 08:48 PM.
_________________ Playstation Network ID: xeron6
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
pixie
| |
Re: KHTML for MorphOS - update Posted on 15-Aug-2006 20:56:35
| | [ #55 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Mar-2003 Posts: 3115
From: Figueira da Foz - Portugal | | |
|
| Quote:
Okay, okay, I know Apple have but we can't necessarily live by their example! |
Oh no.. please don't... what you should do is exploring the fews that still program for amiga like OSs, and bring back the slavery on the way...
We have a reality that is different of Apple, still Apple did, but we can't as it is morally wrong.. maybe he should die on starvation while doing it also, that way you and many others would get your ethics right and be happy... _________________ Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home. The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
marcik
| |
Re: KHTML for MorphOS - update Posted on 15-Aug-2006 21:12:42
| | [ #56 ] |
|
|
|
Member |
Joined: 27-Aug-2004 Posts: 35
From: Unknown | | |
|
| If you have a look at the architecture overview provided by Nokia you will see how they comply with the license. They even provide a reference UI for free :)
No, Nokia released first only WebCore part (LGPL, platform independand version) - WebKit (place where all the magic happens) part and browser based on it was closed for about half year (Apple's WebKit was closed for a few years). And it's not breaking LGPL. And even if WebCore part wouldn't be available as shared library (section 6 B of LGPL2.1), but linked to WebKit - it's still not breaking LGPL, as long as object files of WebKit and tools used to compilation are available so that anyone can relink it with self-modified version of WebCore (section 6 A writes about it).
BTW. MorphOS WebKit is 100% written by me. No code from Apple or Nokia WebKits that are BSD are used there, as they will be useless - it contains very platform-specific things. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Bean
| |
Re: KHTML for MorphOS - update Posted on 15-Aug-2006 21:21:31
| | [ #57 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 4-Apr-2003 Posts: 1225
From: U.K. | | |
|
| This news item is getting a bit out of control. I don't think there has actually been one post about the item in general it's just degenerated into license wrangling, shots at the current Amiga browsers and now cheap shots about whose OS / userbase is better. Come on guys snap out of it.
I'm interested in seeing this running and am wondering if the features will be up to AWeb / IBrowse standard. By that I mean all the bits that surround the browser - hotlists, ftp downloads, net status windows, javascript compatibility, web history. etc, etc. We'll find out soon enough.
It's good to see some movement lately on the browser front on both platforms. _________________ OS4.1 + SAM Flex RIP my A1XE.. that used to have an appetite for batteries!
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Legion
| |
Re: KHTML for MorphOS - update Posted on 15-Aug-2006 21:44:59
| | [ #58 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 21-Apr-2003 Posts: 820
From: Fargo, ND, USA | | |
|
| Quote:
What really makes me laugh is all you guys who said PEgasos and Morphos was the devil and now you are sweating MOS devs and the Peg hardware when you realize where Ainc and A1 got you... |
_________________ ...wait... what?
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Yabba
| |
Re: KHTML for MorphOS - update Posted on 15-Aug-2006 21:46:18
| | [ #59 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 29-Jan-2004 Posts: 134
From: Unknown | | |
|
| Quote:
Hmm.. you are so blameless and innocent is that it? Then why is it that you put code in Ibrowse to report MOS as OS4?? Please explain that. |
This is getting silly!!!!! OS4 is detected by checking ExecBase version >= 50. I never ever even tried to detect that IBrowse was running under MOS.
Now you also owe me an appology! |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Vader
| |
Re: KHTML for MorphOS - update Posted on 15-Aug-2006 21:48:13
| | [ #60 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 18-Sep-2003 Posts: 195
From: UK | | |
|
| Quote:
Yabba
Hmm.. you are so blameless and innocent is that it? Then why is it that you put code in Ibrowse to report MOS as OS4?? Please explain that. |
No one put code in IB to report MOS as OS4, it simply checked the version (of exec iirc) was 50+ and reported OS4. As MOS also uses v50+ it reported it incorrectly as OS4, and was fixed in IB2.4 as soon as it was reported to us. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|