Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 24th Dec 2017 23:56 UTC
Apple

Apple will be releasing the code of the operating system and applications of the Apple Lisa.

Just wanted to let everyone know the sources to the OS and applications were recovered, I converted them to Unix end of line conventions and space for Pascal tabs after the files using Disk Image Chef, and they are with Apple for review. After that's done, the Computer History Museum will do a CHM blog post about the historical significance of the software and the code that is cleared for release by Apple will be made available in 2018. The only thing I saw that probably won't be able to be released is the American Heritage dictionary for the spell checker in LisaWrite.

Merry Christmas everybody.

Order by: Score:
jockm
Member since:
2012-12-22

They have made the source public, but I am not sure it counts as "Open Source" in the way we typically think of it. If you look at the license on other software at the CHM it allows for non-commercial use only and restricts your ability to post it elsewhere.

Still very exciting and I plan to spend some time reading through it

Reply Score: 6

Hayoo! Member since:
2013-04-13

It's open source alright, but not completely free. That's why we have such thing as free and open source software (FOSS) licensing model. Open and free (as in libre) are related, but not same.

Reply Score: 6

Andre Member since:
2005-07-06

Wouldn't this be called Shared Source rather then Open Source?

Reply Score: 5

s-peter Member since:
2006-01-29

You're right that open source and free software is not the same, but this is completely irrelevant here, as what we are discussing neither fits the definition of open source [1] nor free software [2]. Both require that the software is available for any purpose (not only non-commercial).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

Reply Score: 2

jockm Member since:
2012-12-22

Open Source, at least in the parts of the internet where I hang out conforms to this definition:

Open source licenses are licenses that comply with the Open Source Definition — in brief, they allow software to be freely used, modified, and shared. To be approved by the Open Source Initiative (also known as the OSI), a license must go through the Open Source Initiative's license review process.

(Source: https://opensource.org/licenses)

Source available at the computer history museum has restrictions on use and how it can be shared such that I don't think it qualifies as Open Source.

We need a different term for what the CHM is doing. Call it Shared Source, or maybe Public Source, or whatever; but from where I sit it isn't Open Source

Reply Score: 2

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Readonly source.

Reply Score: 2

jockm Member since:
2012-12-22

Readonly source.


Except that it isn't. You can modify it, you can do non commercial things, but you are limited in uses and cannot republish without permission.

I would like to propose: Exhibit Source

Reply Score: 2

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"Readonly source.


Except that it isn't. You can modify it, you can do non commercial things, but you are limited in uses and cannot republish without permission.

I would like to propose: Exhibit Source
"

Modifications that don't see the light of day because you don't have permission to republish it basically don't exist. It would be no different than someone having downloaded the source code and a hard drive corruption jumbles some of the bits around.

All museum exhibits are readonly, and those conditions (mainly the republish one) makes the code readonly in effect. You basically can't do anything with it other than post snippets of it for historical commentary.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

They have made the source public, but I am not sure it counts as "Open Source" in the way we typically think of it. If you look at the license on other software at the CHM it allows for non-commercial use only and restricts your ability to post it elsewhere.

At least when the software enters public domain, the source to match will be available... (like it should be for all software in this http://www.osnews.com/permalink?648933 proposal of mine)

Reply Score: 3

jockm Member since:
2012-12-22

And should that day ever come, it will indeed be useful.

I am not complaining, I am just saying that Thom in his enthusiasm to publish some very cool news, used the wrong terminology

Reply Score: 2

Odwalla Member since:
2006-02-01

Well those companies that have been waiting to release commercial software based on 3 1/2 decade old 68000 PASCAL sources are just crap out of luck, then!

Reply Score: 1

lisa emu?
by chrish on Mon 25th Dec 2017 18:43 UTC
chrish
Member since:
2005-07-14

I really hope someone can use this to get a Lisa emulator up and running!

Reply Score: 2

RE: lisa emu?
by Dark-Star on Wed 27th Dec 2017 00:54 UTC in reply to "lisa emu?"
Dark-Star Member since:
2010-09-27

There's a LISA emulator core (experimental) in MAME already, and then there is lisa.sunder.net ... Their emulation can probably be made more accurate by the release of the source code...

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: lisa emu?
by zima on Wed 27th Dec 2017 01:09 UTC in reply to "RE: lisa emu?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator now emulates computers? This feels wrong... ;) (and why not MESS?)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: lisa emu?
by The123king on Wed 27th Dec 2017 10:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: lisa emu?"
The123king Member since:
2009-05-28

MESS and MAME merged into one

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: lisa emu?
by Kochise on Wed 27th Dec 2017 12:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: lisa emu?"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

What a mess.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: lisa emu?
by flanque on Thu 28th Dec 2017 10:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: lisa emu?"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

MESS was maimed.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by jigzat
by jigzat on Tue 26th Dec 2017 01:04 UTC
jigzat
Member since:
2008-10-30

They should do it with the Newton.

Edited 2017-12-26 01:06 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by jigzat
by jockm on Fri 29th Dec 2017 19:24 UTC in reply to "Comment by jigzat"
jockm Member since:
2012-12-22

And perhaps they will in the year 2033

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by jigzat
by Vanders on Fri 29th Dec 2017 23:02 UTC in reply to "Comment by jigzat"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Eat up Martha?

Reply Score: 2

I wonder,
by Orisai on Thu 28th Dec 2017 03:35 UTC
Orisai
Member since:
2012-06-18

what's the point in releasing it 35 years later?

Reply Score: 1

RE: I wonder,
by Andre on Thu 28th Dec 2017 15:44 UTC in reply to "I wonder,"
Andre Member since:
2005-07-06

There is no practical use, but I suppose it is interesting from a historical point of view.

Reply Score: 1

Dev Tools
by whartung on Thu 28th Dec 2017 06:17 UTC
whartung
Member since:
2005-07-06

It would be nice if they released the build tools as well, notably the Pascal compiler and Linker.

Curious how close Lisa Pascal is to FreePascal today. Would almost be interesting to port the Lisa OS to FreePascal, convert the 68K machine code to Pascal, and, finally, get the whole kit up and running on a Raspberry Pi as a target.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Dev Tools
by cmost on Thu 28th Dec 2017 11:39 UTC in reply to "Dev Tools"
cmost Member since:
2006-07-16

That would make for a really cool Mac Classic or Lisa mod if you could find an old case on e-bay.

Reply Score: 2