Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

GFA, ASM, STOS, ...

Moderators: exxos, simonsunnyboy, Mug UK, Zorro 2, Moderator Team

User avatar
troed
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1181
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:20 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby troed » Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:34 pm

Nimrod wrote:Still thinking of sending Atari an email at least to ask for clarification if they still retain the original sources and IP.


A bear best not poked. No company ever will answer "we do not retain IP".

User avatar
Frank B
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:28 am
Location: Boston

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby Frank B » Mon Mar 06, 2017 10:44 pm

troed wrote:
Nimrod wrote:Still thinking of sending Atari an email at least to ask for clarification if they still retain the original sources and IP.


A bear best not poked. No company ever will answer "we do not retain IP".


I thought the original GPL drop of GEM included very early Atari source code from TOS 1? If so would it be worth asking if we can make a later version available under the GPL? That might sound more reasonable.

mikro
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1263
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 11:11 am
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Contact:

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby mikro » Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:48 am

BlankVector wrote:Of course you are free to do what you want for yourself with GPL software (i.e. playing with EmuTOS sources or binaries). Limitations will only occur if you want to redistribute your work. Rules are simple: if you merge GPL sources to your project, and distribute it in binary form, then you must also license your project with GPL (otherwise it would violate copyright of The EmuTOS development team, Digital Research, Lineo, etc.). And you can only redistribute software under GPL (or any other license) if all copyright owners allowed to do that.

What about this (assuming we can benefit from EmuTOS GEMDOS layer): "someone" will upload TOS sources to github. Make them gcc friendly etc. Just as sources.

Then, someone will replace/add stuff from EmuTOS, with respective copyrights etc. But still only sources.

And then, finally, someone will provide a build script which uses Travis CI to compile everything. But just this script. So everyone who fork the github repo can enable for own personal use ;) this script and build a copy of the new TOS for himself.

So the end result: everybody has 1:1 exact copy as the others (Travis CI builds are deterministic) and yet nobody is distributing anything against the license. ;)

ijor
Hardware Guru
Hardware Guru
Posts: 3023
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 7:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby ijor » Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:52 am

Nimrod wrote:Hmmm... is this a case of better to ask for forgiveness than permission?
...
Still thinking of sending Atari an email at least to ask for clarification if they still retain the original sources and IP.


Come on. You can't be serious. I know you have only good intentions. But do you realize how something like this might be interpreted by a twisted lawyer? I'll translate:

We are infringing your IP rights. We have been doing that for years. Do you forgive us? Do you mind if we keep infringing your copyright? Are you the actual copyright holder? Or are we infringing somebody's else rights?

I am probably exaggerating a bit. But corp lawyers mentality is not exactly how we think things here. People must also understand that for a corp, one thing it to tolerate their IP to be infringed "without knowing", and a completely different thing is tolerate it being fully aware that somebody is infringing. It's a totally different legal scenario. They might be ok as long as they "don't know". Don't ask, don't tell. But as soon as you ask them, they might feel forced to react.

I know I might sound a bit too harsh. But honestly, I don't understand the need to taking such a risk, even if the chances are low. At some point the situation was different. But now, the less they know the better.

As regarding if they have original sources, it is well known they don't have anything at all.

User avatar
lp
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2230
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 11:09 pm
Location: GFA Headquarters
Contact:

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby lp » Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:55 am

ijor wrote:As regarding if they have original sources, it is well known they don't have anything at all.


Is there some official document stating that, or some unsubstantiated rumor?

ijor
Hardware Guru
Hardware Guru
Posts: 3023
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 7:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby ijor » Tue Mar 07, 2017 3:40 am

lp wrote:
ijor wrote:As regarding if they have original sources, it is well known they don't have anything at all.

Is there some official document stating that, or some unsubstantiated rumor?


Neither one nor the other. AFAIK there is no official Atari statement. But it is certainly not just a rumor. Some people investigated and had contact with previous Atari management. Then you have Curt Vendel and his team that developed the Flashback for Atari. You'll find much more information at Atariage.

User avatar
1st1
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 668
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 11:48 am

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby 1st1 » Tue Mar 07, 2017 6:20 am

Try to open more than 4 drive windows. Maybe the total of windows with accs or so is 7, but drives ("explorer") are maximum 4.
Power without the Price. It's not a bug. It's a feature. _/|\_ATARI

1040STFM in PC-Tower (PAK68/2, OvrScn, 4 MB, 1GB SCSI, CD-ROM...) * 2x Falcon 030 32GB/14MB+ScrnBlstrIII * 2x TT030 73GB/20MB+Nova * 520/1040STFM * 520/1040STE * 260/520ST/+ * some Mega ST * 2x Mega STE 500MB/4MB+M.CoCo * Stacy * STBook * SLM605 * SLM804 * SLM605 * SMM804 * SH 204/205 * Megafile 30/44/60 * SF314 * SF354 * 5x Pofo * PC3

User avatar
1st1
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 668
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 11:48 am

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby 1st1 » Tue Mar 07, 2017 6:36 am

It's fascinating that we now can reproduce original ROMs for ST, STE and TT, but I think due to unsolved licence of TOS the best way would be to continue with EmuTOS, to make it capable of doing everything what original TOS can do on the related machine. In my mind at least the following things are missing:
- SCSI support in TT/Falcon
- Some other TT related stuff
- Some other Falcon related stuff
- Full functionality of TOS 2.0x, 3.0x and 4.0x (and probalbly 4.92) desktop
- dropin replacement for the original rom chips without h/w modifications
Additionally then
- all known bugfixes of original TOS if they also have been reproduced in EmuTOS, maybe configureable through enhancement of newdesk.inf.
- add support for new hardware (loadable vdi drivers for VME cards, ISA cards, SAGA, SuperVidel, IDE in TT, etc.)
- capability to simply load additional drivers, like network, file systems, etc. Just drop the drivers to a folder (similar to auto, cpx, etc, compare also Amiga OS libs)
Power without the Price. It's not a bug. It's a feature. _/|\_ATARI

1040STFM in PC-Tower (PAK68/2, OvrScn, 4 MB, 1GB SCSI, CD-ROM...) * 2x Falcon 030 32GB/14MB+ScrnBlstrIII * 2x TT030 73GB/20MB+Nova * 520/1040STFM * 520/1040STE * 260/520ST/+ * some Mega ST * 2x Mega STE 500MB/4MB+M.CoCo * Stacy * STBook * SLM605 * SLM804 * SLM605 * SMM804 * SH 204/205 * Megafile 30/44/60 * SF314 * SF354 * 5x Pofo * PC3

ThorstenOtto
Obsessive compulsive Atari behavior
Obsessive compulsive Atari behavior
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:54 pm

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby ThorstenOtto » Tue Mar 07, 2017 6:41 am

mikro wrote: Make them gcc friendly etc. Just as sources.


They are already compilable bc gcc, but i think won't link. And definitely won't work. Making that happen will be a lot of work, basically most of the work that was done by the EmuTOS team in the last years, and probably more because there are much more assembler files.

And then, finally, someone will provide a build script which uses Travis CI to compile everything. But just this script. So everyone who fork the github repo can enable for own personal use ;) this script and build a copy of the new TOS for himself.


Nice idea. But that would not only require gcc on the build machine, but also the m68k cross compiler.

BTW i sometimes don't understand whats the problem with distributing binaries that where compiled from GPL source. Every linux distribution does that.

mikro
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1263
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 11:11 am
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Contact:

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby mikro » Tue Mar 07, 2017 6:58 am

ThorstenOtto wrote:But that would not only require gcc on the build machine, but also the m68k cross compiler.

You haven't followed latest freemint development, have you? ;) https://github.com/freemint/freemint/bl ... travis.yml

(for non-technical people: it's possible to build m68k binaries in the cloud all you need is a gcc-compatible source code)

BTW i sometimes don't understand whats the problem with distributing binaries that where compiled from GPL source. Every linux distribution does that.

You don't understand -- you can't mix the code to provide binaries. That's exactly the very reason why you don't have NVIDIA drivers included in your distro (esp. in the ones backed up by US companies).

User avatar
mfro
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 663
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 10:33 am
Location: SW Germany

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby mfro » Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:02 am

ThorstenOtto wrote:BTW i sometimes don't understand whats the problem with distributing binaries that where compiled from GPL source. Every linux distribution does that.


Yes. But every Linux distribution also provides all the sources that have been used to create these binaries in order to meet GPL requirements. The intention is that everybody can build upon everybody else's derived work.

ThorstenOtto
Obsessive compulsive Atari behavior
Obsessive compulsive Atari behavior
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:54 pm

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby ThorstenOtto » Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:48 am

mfro wrote:But every Linux distribution also provides all the sources that have been used to create these binaries in order to meet GPL requirement


Yes, buts thats not the problem most of the time. In most cases where projects have problems with GPL, they are already making the sources available. Its just sometimes not possible to also provide binaries.

mfro wrote:The intention is that everybody can build upon everybody else's derived work.


I don't want anyone stopping from doing that. It's only an additional service to do that already to save the user the hassle if he just want to use the package. And its also sometimes much easier to just provide the binaries than having to explain how they must be build, and what dependencies might be required.

But mikro's comment might explain it, it's the mix that prevents that. What a shame, thought the primary goal of GPL was to make free software available, and those problems just prevent that. But we are getting off-topic here.

ThorstenOtto
Obsessive compulsive Atari behavior
Obsessive compulsive Atari behavior
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:54 pm

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby ThorstenOtto » Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:50 am

mikro wrote:You haven't followed latest freemint development, have you? ;) https://github.com/freemint/freemint/bl ... travis.yml


You are cheating there by installing the whole cross compiler chain from Vincent ;)

mikro
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1263
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 11:11 am
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Contact:

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby mikro » Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:56 am

ThorstenOtto wrote:What a shame, thought the primary goal of GPL was to make free software available, and those problems just prevent that. But we are getting off-topic here.

That's why some people prefer BSD/MIT licenses. However my cheating method above doesn't infringe the GPL so it should be fine. If you fix the sources for gcc, I promise I'll setup the build environment. :-P

ThorstenOtto
Obsessive compulsive Atari behavior
Obsessive compulsive Atari behavior
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:54 pm

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby ThorstenOtto » Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:22 am

mikro wrote:If you fix the sources for gcc, I promise I'll setup the build environment. :-P


I currently don't see much point in doing that. The result might be slightly faster due to better code-generation, but thats about all. If you are looking for a place to enhance TOS, then it would make much more sense to implement the missing features in EmuTOS. And then it might be a better idea to just redo it from scratch, rather than using those source, not only due to license issues.

BlankVector
Captain Atari
Captain Atari
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:52 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby BlankVector » Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:43 pm

mikro wrote:Then, someone will replace/add stuff from EmuTOS, with respective copyrights etc. But still only sources.

As far as I understand GPL, there is no limitation on mixing GPL sources with other stuff (while they stay in source form). So regarding to EmuTOS and other GPL sources, I believe this is correct.

mikro wrote:And then, finally, someone will provide a build script which uses Travis CI to compile everything. But just this script. So everyone who fork the github repo can enable for own personal use ;) this script and build a copy of the new TOS for himself.

GPL only imposes restrictions on redistribution to third-party people. But you are free to use any GPL source/binary for any personal use. In my opinion, this scenario fully respects the GPL. This is similar to GNU/Linux distributions which provides scripts to get Java, Flash plugin, etc.

Also, I used similar solution to mix EmuTOS GPL sources and AROS APL sources (for initial FastRAM / floppy support in EmuTOS for Amiga). APL open source, but incompatible with GPL. AROS sources are provided in EmuTOS source archives, but not enabled in official binaries. Everyone is free to recompile a mixed binary for his own usage (BTW I'm slowly replacing AROS routines by new, GPL ones, to get rid of that limitation).

mikro wrote:So the end result: everybody has 1:1 exact copy as the others (Travis CI builds are deterministic) and yet nobody is distributing anything against the license. ;)

IMHO, this is perfectly true, regarding to EmuTOS GPL :)

Of course, there is still the question of shamelessly using copyrighted sources leaked somewhere on the web. That can only be a problem for their copyright holder, if they still care.

User avatar
Frank B
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:28 am
Location: Boston

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby Frank B » Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:51 pm

ijor wrote:
lp wrote:
ijor wrote:As regarding if they have original sources, it is well known they don't have anything at all.

Is there some official document stating that, or some unsubstantiated rumor?


Neither one nor the other. AFAIK there is no official Atari statement. But it is certainly not just a rumor. Some people investigated and had contact with previous Atari management. Then you have Curt Vendel and his team that developed the Flashback for Atari. You'll find much more information at Atariage.


When I worked on the 10 in 1 joystick for them they had no game source code they could share.
That predates the flash back by quite a while though.

BlankVector
Captain Atari
Captain Atari
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:52 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby BlankVector » Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:53 pm

ijor wrote:As regarding if they have original sources, it is well known they don't have anything at all.

Very possible.
And even if they still have the sources, that would require additional effort to add GPL headers in all sources, maybe provide build scripts, etc. And usually, people and companies don't like to make efforts if there is nothing to gain.

On the other hand, the question could be:
- Your copyrighted sources have been available on the web for a while. Can this be now considered as abandonware, so we can freely resuse that?
o YES
o NO

It is easy for any company to answer that question (no additional work).
But as already mentioned, it might be risky to ask.

User avatar
1st1
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 668
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 11:48 am

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby 1st1 » Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:20 pm

BlankVector wrote:On the other hand, the question could be:
- Your 25 years old, since then not anymore commecially used copyrighted sources have been available on the web for a while. Can this be now considered as abandonware, so we can freely resuse that for non commercial hobby project?
o YES
o NO


This way would be better.
Last edited by 1st1 on Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Power without the Price. It's not a bug. It's a feature. _/|\_ATARI

1040STFM in PC-Tower (PAK68/2, OvrScn, 4 MB, 1GB SCSI, CD-ROM...) * 2x Falcon 030 32GB/14MB+ScrnBlstrIII * 2x TT030 73GB/20MB+Nova * 520/1040STFM * 520/1040STE * 260/520ST/+ * some Mega ST * 2x Mega STE 500MB/4MB+M.CoCo * Stacy * STBook * SLM605 * SLM804 * SLM605 * SMM804 * SH 204/205 * Megafile 30/44/60 * SF314 * SF354 * 5x Pofo * PC3

User avatar
1st1
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 668
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 11:48 am

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby 1st1 » Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:20 pm

double post
Power without the Price. It's not a bug. It's a feature. _/|\_ATARI

1040STFM in PC-Tower (PAK68/2, OvrScn, 4 MB, 1GB SCSI, CD-ROM...) * 2x Falcon 030 32GB/14MB+ScrnBlstrIII * 2x TT030 73GB/20MB+Nova * 520/1040STFM * 520/1040STE * 260/520ST/+ * some Mega ST * 2x Mega STE 500MB/4MB+M.CoCo * Stacy * STBook * SLM605 * SLM804 * SLM605 * SMM804 * SH 204/205 * Megafile 30/44/60 * SF314 * SF354 * 5x Pofo * PC3

User avatar
lp
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2230
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 11:09 pm
Location: GFA Headquarters
Contact:

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby lp » Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:12 pm

I once talked to a well known software author about this very topic. It comes down to damages. Atari has not sold or supported TOS for over 20 years, therefore cannot prove any finical damages whatsoever. Nor can they prove any illegal activity has harmed the company or their reputation in any way. All they can really do is sit back an watch it happen.

B&C ComputerVisions sells a CD on ebay with leaked TOS sources among other questionable things for years. They will say the cost is for the media, but would an IP lawyer agree. Clearly B&C is not worried about infringing any copyrights, nor any lawyers knocking on their door. http://www.ebay.com/itm/HQ-CDROM-Atari- ... 0966936268

Btw, don't buy that CD, free ISO copy at devdocs. :wink:

User avatar
1st1
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 668
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 11:48 am

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby 1st1 » Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:45 pm

Ah, its the HQ iso, from which czietz extracted all the nice things like Falcon, Microbox, STE+ boards, Panther, Blitter, Blossom and so on...

Anyhow, even if the sources are there , only the licence owner can declare it to open source status. Only if it is on a compatible licence it can be combined with EmuTOS. Or we have to wait until copyright is lost, depending on the country that can last another 70 years...
Power without the Price. It's not a bug. It's a feature. _/|\_ATARI

1040STFM in PC-Tower (PAK68/2, OvrScn, 4 MB, 1GB SCSI, CD-ROM...) * 2x Falcon 030 32GB/14MB+ScrnBlstrIII * 2x TT030 73GB/20MB+Nova * 520/1040STFM * 520/1040STE * 260/520ST/+ * some Mega ST * 2x Mega STE 500MB/4MB+M.CoCo * Stacy * STBook * SLM605 * SLM804 * SLM605 * SMM804 * SH 204/205 * Megafile 30/44/60 * SF314 * SF354 * 5x Pofo * PC3

joska
Hardware Guru
Hardware Guru
Posts: 3574
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:55 pm
Location: Florø, Norway
Contact:

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby joska » Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:00 pm

BlankVector wrote:On the other hand, the question could be:
- Your copyrighted sources have been available on the web for a while. Can this be now considered as abandonware, so we can freely resuse that?
o YES
o NO

It is easy for any company to answer that question (no additional work).


They can't just answer this, they first have to go through 35 year old agreements to find out exactly what they can and can't do. Approaching the current "Atari" with such a question will either result in a "no" (no work involved to give that answer!) or in worst case "it's our property, stay off!".
Jo Even

Firebee - Falcon060 - Milan060 - Falcon040 - MIST - Mega ST - STM - STE - Amiga 600 - Sharp MZ700 - MSX - Amstrad CPC - C64

User avatar
mfro
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 663
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 10:33 am
Location: SW Germany

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby mfro » Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:18 pm

joska wrote:They can't just answer this, they first have to go through 35 year old agreements to find out exactly what they can and can't do. Approaching the current "Atari" with such a question will either result in a "no" (no work involved to give that answer!) or in worst case "it's our property, stay off!".


I would agree. That even happens with much more reasonable companies than today's Atari. They all employ lawyers and once they get involved, everything comes to a sudden halt.

I recently asked AMD support if they would be willing to release the programmer's documentation for old PCI Radeon cards since they have released documentation for many newer chips already and there is no commercial value in it anymore. My (really friendly) contact appeared helpful, asked what I would need exactly and promised to come back with available infos after a few days. Which he did - with the information that AMD doesn't have any ATI documentation anymore.

I then asked whether it would be possible to release somebody from an NDA he signed back then and still has the docs. The contact again promised to come back again (and really did). Then the answer was basically: "go away".

Guess whom he talked to?

User avatar
lp
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2230
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 11:09 pm
Location: GFA Headquarters
Contact:

Re: Future source-code patches for TOS 2.06/3.06

Postby lp » Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:28 pm

Having tried to track down everything GFA related for the past 20 some years I have some experience asking for source code from individuals and companies. I've heard every excuse in the book. The most common reply is, they don't have it anymore, or the media has gone bad. But, Joska raises a good point as the request would require someone at the company to actually perform work, as in an IP search, that in the end will not bring in revenue. I would expect a generic reply like "Sorry we can't grant an open source license", with no explanation as to why.


Social Media

     

Return to “Coding”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest