The first round of screenshots showing off the new GUI for SkyOS 5.0 have been released. The three screenshots show various features of the new GUI, including the new WindUI theme, new Viewer window, and various window effects such as curves, shadows, and transparency. In addition to the new GUI, SkyOS 5.0 will have other additions, such as more support for hardware (e.g. an ATI driver to go alongside the NVidia driver), speed and stability improvements, anti-aliased text, and Bochs support.
New SkyOS 5.0 GUI Screenshots Released
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
These screenshot do not look very much to the theme that won.
I know much work is underway but the shadows look like black bars instead of shadow..
there’s a huge difference between designin a theme in photoshop and implementing it.
i still think that roberts output concerning skyos is somewhat phenomenal.
thumbs up.
One of the reasons I was opposed to Wind UI is that there were absolutely no window controls depicted. Not close, minimize, or anything. It appears that the implemented theme will not be true to the mock up in this respect. I hope this remains the case unless there are some fancy interface plans I don’t know about to work around this.
I think that instead of Robert showing symptoms of MPS (Multiple Pers. Syndrome) he shows symptoms of “Multiple Body Syndrome”… He has like dozens of bodies all programming like hell, led by one mind… Hey, Borg, anyone?
But serious now, well done Robert, very nice indeed
Isn’t impressive or what ? I wish I had such dedication myself to push my stagnated, crapy, shell-only OS to this level…
Way to go !
Does this guy get time to sleep?
The WindUI’s starting to come together – doesn’t resemble the mockup much, but i’d imagine his been working on the underlying framework so it can look like it first.
The only thing that now causes SkyOS to be dead-ugly is the fonts. The WindUI is really great, but without nicely anti-aliased sans-serif fonts, I hardly expect it to become popular.
– Simon
For a Work in progress it’s very impressive, if you put a “new”and a “old” screen enxt to eachother there are a lot of differences, like AA fonts, 32bit icons, rounded (not yet AA’zed) borders, etc.
Still a lot of work, like Better icon support (SVG anyone?:P) rounded AA shadows, and complete theme integration, but eh, look what the’ve done in well 4 weeks??
I think it’s great!
Yes, most GUI widgets use still the sans serif (not anti-aliased) fonts. But as the fonts are “themeable” too, this is just a matter of seconds to switch them to anti-aliased fonts.
The shadows are anti-aliased already, but they are to dark. I will fix this two issues for the next screenshots.
Rick: What do you mean by “complete theme integration”?
As you can see, WindUI is just a theme. You can still switch back to the old themes. (6 themes to be exact).
Thanks!
This OS doesn’t look any better than windows 95. The preview pics look sad. No AA fonts, no blended shadows, no AA corners, etc. What does this OS even offer?
They use MS Sans-Serif (ugliest bitmap font ever)… why?!
AA fonts: they are there. read above.
Blended shadows: read above
AA corners: OMG
There is alot more to an operating system than just the GUI. The state of the GUI has little to do with the maturity of the underlying system. Syllable’s GUI looks like 1980s X-Windows, but the actual OS is fairly mature.
Nice work… I’m still not sure how it’s possible for one guy to do so much in such a short time 🙂 Of course there are a few visual problems like the ones mentioned above, but this isn’t the final product and they will be fixed. To me better Icon’s is definately a thing that would make it look nicer.. Good work!
I too think that there has to be something else going on here. OS Development moving this fast makes me a little curious. As even the supporters have said here, there must be Multiple Roberts working on this code. Although that’s giving a lot of credit to Robert. Either he’s the coding Zenith, or he is using GPL’d work to further his OS development. I don’t mind as long as he does whatever is necessary to cleanse himself of these allegations next stable release (5.0).
Why exactly does it have to be GPLed code?
There are other open source licenses out there that do not require you to release source code….
But most people on this site are GPL trolls anyway, I guess.
@DJ Jedi Jeff
> Could you elaborate please? How precisely are they
> violating the GPL. It sounds like you’re saying that if an
> OS uses a GPL’d driver the entire OS must be released
> under the GPL. And that’s just plain wrong.
It depends. If the driver is dynamically loaded as a sort of library, that is if it doesn’t live in a process of its own and communicates with the rest of the OS trough pipes or other similar mechanisms, then the guy is plain right.
what happened the shading on the light grey area of the titlebar? and the dark grey area is differently shaded too. just because they have the same colours in the same places doesn’t mean it’s the same theme. it’s not.
It needs to be more than just a theme if it’s going to be a good UI. Thought needs to go into every aspect of it’s implementation. You need to design applications around it if you want it to reflect the original idea. I don’t know how closely the team are working with the original designer but i think it’s lost most of it’s charm in the transition from mockup to working theme.
“Could you elaborate please? How precisely are they violating the GPL.”
That will be revealed soon.
By any chance, do you work for SCO?
If SkyOS was violating the GPL the FSF would already be after Robert. But their not, so please stop trying to spread FUD about SkyOS. If Robert wants to keep it closed source then he has every right to do so. If you want an Open Source OS that isn’t Linux or BSD then there are a ton of other hobby OS’s out there. Just stop spreading this crap about SkyOS violating the GPL.
As far as the screenshots, WindUI is coming together, give them a little more time and it will look mostly like the mockup.
Happy Computing
Sandman
The them being shown is just testing. They are putting all the UI elements in place. Once that is finished it will be polished.
COME ON Windoh!zzz 95 was a company made, maybe by 200+ ppl
THIS IS [mostly] a ONE MAN Army Hobby OS
Even though my previous comment was questionable, I do think that SkyOS have come a long way from where it was last year. I am beginning to see a possible mainstream OS from this project. I do suspect some foul play in the development, but then again it is human nature to be skeptical.
Omnivector , those are the most PATHETIC point to pin on the usefulness of an operating system.
Goo Work Robert, Ignore the Jealous people.
“It sounds like you’re saying that if an OS uses a GPL’d driver the entire OS must be released under the GPL. And that’s just plain wrong.”
If a kernel uses a GPL’d driver then the Kernel becomes GPL. According to the Free Software Foundation dynamically loading or statically loading GPL code causes your derivative work to be GPL regardless of your belief. That’s what the LEGAL COUNSEL for FSF says.
Dynamically loading GPL’d code does NOT nullify the requirement to also place your work under the GPL by the act of distributing GPL code with the kernel.
This is why for example FreeBSD contains no GPL’d driver code in it’s kernel that is enabled by default such as the NTFS driver, etc. Since they only distribute the GPL and BSD soruce side by side they have no requirement. But SkyOS by distributing binary code derived from GPL and BSD code side by side is invoking the distribution activation of the GPL license.
Could you guys please stop whining about the damn GPL, and just admire Robert’s work?? And even IF (I’m saying IF) he uses some pieces of OSS software as EXAMPLES, may I then please remind you on what piece of software Linux is based on?
Come on, give the guy a break, let him do his thing, or maybe you’re just scared the SkyOS might one day overthrow Linux?
The difference between Linux and SkyOS if SkyOS was indeed using GPL kernel drivers and code would be that SkyOS is directly copying code, and Linux has done strenuous amounts of work to make sure stolen code does not make it’s way into the kernel.
Nobody here is really worried or in fear that SkyOS might overthrow Linux, we are just concerned that the progress of SkyOS is not being based on the illegal use of GPL’d code.
It would be interesting to look through the source code of this project Robert sounds like quite an interesting developer.
Could you guys please stop whining about the damn GPL, and just admire Robert’s work??
It’s not his work if he stole it from another project. I’m not saying he did, however I’m just not at all convinced that he didn’t at the moment. I have used SkyOS and linux and there are a number of things that piqued my curiousity. In adddition, I never received the source code to his modified version of VLC, though I did receive the source code for grub.
And even IF (I’m saying IF) he uses some pieces of OSS software as EXAMPLES, may I then please remind you on what piece of software Linux is based on?
Linux isn’t based on any piece of software. It is, however, a unix-like operating system. There’s a huge difference between using the concepts of another operating system/project, and using the code.
Adam
Robert et al
Also thank you to the morons who yet again are asking stupid questions about the GPL and veered these comments to something I do not wish to read out yet again.
Please lets talk about something different.
To jbett:
If you want I can invite you to a VNC session for looking into the sources. I’m sure this will answer your question.
Just email me.
Since the GUI is still being worked on, I hope someone noticed that some of the corners on the shadows needs to be rounded. I noticed it on the top toolbar thing.
I have a question that not only involves SkyOS GUI but other GUIs. If you have a very dark background, in my case I use a solid black background, what color is the shadow?
I suppose there is a way to turn off shadows.
There’s no doubt that the SkyOS distribution is violating the GPL. Their mediaplayer and bootloader both use GPLed software. The sourcecode doesn’t come with SkyOS, nor did I receive a written offer for the sourcecode. That, in and of itself, is a violation.
So why should we trust anyone when they say that no GPL’ed code has actually made it’s way into the operating system itself?
Adam
@Sandman:
“If SkyOS was violating the GPL the FSF would already be after Robert. But their not, so please stop trying to spread FUD about SkyOS. If Robert wants to keep it closed source then he has every right to do so. If you want an Open Source OS that isn’t Linux or BSD then there are a ton of other hobby OS’s out there. Just stop spreading this crap about SkyOS violating the GPL. ”
I’ve seen correspondonce between this individual and the legal counsel of FSF as well as one of the main kernel developers. Eblen Moglen, legal counsel for the FSF made it clear that they could not pursue any violations regarding the Linux kernel themselves as the FSF does not hold the copyright on the Linux kernel. The kernel maintainer after being shown what evidence had been found so far said, and I quote “it looks bad”. In addition, Eblen Moglen also believed it was worth further research.
What your not seeing is that Linux isn’t a direct copy of UNIX being unix-like means that you are somewhat compatible, there are a lot of things that are very similar. Yes it is based on many UNIX principles and fundamentals but that doesn’t mean that developers took UNIX code and pasted it in where necessary, this is exactly what the SCO lawsuit is all about. UNIX Based does not mean BASED ON UNIX CODE.
“Linux isn’t based on anything BUT it is a Unix-like OS? Doesn’t that mean Linux is BASED on Unix??
Don’t tell me it isn’t, because that would really be plain stupid. Sorry to be so blunt, by the way.”
By based on, he means using Unix code and there is no evidence that Linux uses Unix code, though Linux follows the same concepts as Unix.
“By based on, he means using Unix code and there is no evidence that Linux uses Unix code, though Linux follows the same concepts as Unix.”
The first incarnation of the Linux kernel used code from Minix – an open sourced Unix-like kernel.
Thank you for ruining yet another discussion.
WindUI mockups? They’re on the web site but in a smaller format.
@SadForSkyOS (IP: —.theiqgroup.com)
Stop spamming. If you have problems with the developer(s) about license then do it through private email. Grow up.
Ok, we NEED a GPL ONLY forum, Alot of us readers are getting sick and tired reading the same old thing (mainly from the same old people), so I request a special forum called “GPL release”, where everyone who has a GPL grype can release it in there and keep the actual articles PURE to their topics.. This really does take from the sincerity of the site.
But my side, Robert has a very capable OS in a short time, so everyone screams “Linux kernel”.. reality check, the BSD kernels are also just as capable, and so are the drivers, the libs, etc. and if he used BSD code.. you GPL biggots can go jump because he can keep it as closed source as he likes, and so until proven otherwise BY PROFESSIONALS, just DROP IT and assume the best.. Let’s be honest here.. Your starting a project which has a prerequisit of being closed source, you have 2 pieces of code beside each other… one says, use me, but your derivitive must be source released, the second pile of code says “use me as you will (basically)”, which piece of source are you more likely to use? it’s common sense! (Atleast to me;))
you GPL biggots can go jump because he can keep it as closed source as he likes, and so until proven otherwise BY PROFESSIONALS, just DROP IT and assume the best..
Why should we drop it and assume the best? As I’ve pointed out, SkyOS 4.0 (which I have installed on my hard drive at home) comes with modified versions of grub and vlc (and possibly other GPLed software). Yet it doesn’t come with the source code or a written offer for the source code. This, in and of itself, is a violation of the GPL.
I do not have 4.0a, so I don’t know if this violation has been remedied (I am downloading the zip file for 4.0a now). Even if it has been remedied, this is reason enough for any sane person to *not* assume the best.
Adam
The 4.0a download is complete and I still see no offer for the source code to grub and vlc in the distribution. If anyone sees this offer in their copy, please let me know where, otherwise I SkyOS is in violation of the GPL. Though Robert may simply have overlooked this written offer of the source code, this does make one wondering what other licensing issues may have been overlooked.
Please, don’t get me wrong. I think SkyOS is an amazing feat, but I would really like to get this entire licensing situation cleared up.
Adam
Anyone who is considering using OSS in his business should read these posts.
Spam : Unsolicited e-mail, sent indiscriminately to mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail.
(Def is edited from Dictionairy.com)
These posts are becoming more of an annoyance then cleaning the junk mail out of my mailbox. I think we all know you have issues with Robert and his project. Thank you for makeing us aware of the situation. Now that we know that there are alligations of mis – use we can do our own investigation, if we are interested. Please use a bit of discression now that we are informed and let it go until there are new developments. These are the same issues we read about at every prior SkyOS release. I’m sorry if I hurt anyones feelings but it has gotten quite silly.
Moving on. I am exited that once again I get to see how far the SkyOS team has come. I’ll be D/Ling the live ISO asap and will give a full report as soon as I get a feel for everything. Anyway, Here’s to the day when it becomes practical to use SkyOS as an everyday OS! Cheers.
Actually, seeing as SkyOS 5 only seems to be availible for puchase I may wait to see others reviews before I buy… Darn, and I was really exited.
One of the reasons I was opposed to Wind UI is that there were absolutely no window controls depicted. Not close, minimize, or anything. It appears that the implemented theme will not be true to the mock up in this respect. I hope this remains the case unless there are some fancy interface plans I don’t know about to work around this.
I agree. The WindUI mockup was little more than a fancy wallpaper image.
As far as all plans go right now, SkyOS will still be available for download.
Personally I think that skyos has come a very long way in a very short amount of time. The fact that it is a hobby os makes this feat very impressive. My problem is that its way way to much progress for it to be entirely Robert’s code (or even entirely the code of a small team of developers). Obviously someone else’s code was used for at least some of what you get in the zip. We know that there has to be large chunks of such code else it would be impossible to have the advancement rate that skyos seems to have.
Robert indirectly admits to not being compliant with the gpl when it comes to grub.
As adam states, no mention of the source being availible nor does the source ship with the distribution. Robert has admitted to altering grub in the past and has supplied adam with the modified source IIRC. This means he knows that its a GPL-ed application but he isnt following the licensing associated with the distribution of that application or of a derivative work of that application.
For me, this indirect admission of license violation makes me wonder just how much of the code is, to use the SCO term, misappropriated(sp?) and how much is allowed for him to use.
Good work Robert, a very impressive project. Always good to see a hobby OS making advances.
I’m guessing when you go to McDonalds you take a thermometer to test the coffee.
Whether SkyOS is or is not misusing GPL code has precisely, 100 percent, NOTHING to do with anyone but the code license holders and those using that code. It’s high time some GPL advocates stopped sticking their nose into other people’s business.
Apologies for the tone of that, the GPL Stasi just get on my nerves.
***
SkyOS keeps on improving. I’m starting to think though that Robert Szeleney is actually a group name (Perhaps in honour of the founding coder), I seem to recall a mathematics group doing something similar (Wish I could remember the name they used). Either way, keep up the good work.
Stop trolling, especially when you have no clue as to what is really going on. The ‘stolen GPL code’ could very well be BSD code, or the like.
As I’ve already pointed out a few times now, vlc and grub are licensed under the GPL, and Robert is not> following the GPL when it comes to that software.
Adam
as per topic… i’m not sure but maybe forcedeth (http://www.hailfinger.org/carldani/linux/patches/forcedeth/) can help …
Good work Robert, keep it up! And as an ordinary user that don’t mind where the code came from, i’m happy that things are going fast for SkyOS.
I don’t know if it’s just me but END users could not care less if the OS has GPLed code inside. I want an OS that works plain and simple.
RULES, their are rules everywhere, no more freedom to use code that… never cost anything except time to write.
Darn…
@Adam (IP: —.glstrt01.nj.comcast.net)
No one forced him to use VideoLan and Grub.
No one forced you to spam OSNews either.
Is there a practical reason (convenience, for example) for using a FAT file system ? It seems to me that FAT is the poster boy for fragmentation, therefore a performance killer.
“”So you admit that this misuse of GPLed code does have something to do with me since I do, in fact, use that code. Thanks for backing me up on this. “”
Since if you were part of the SkyOS dev team you would already have access to the SkyOS sources I have to presume you are not. Assuming this is the case then the SkyOS specific modifications to that GPL code will be of practically no benefit to you whatsoever. Since the unmodified source is freely available for download from other sites it is quite apparent that you’re moaning about the GPL to provide yourself with “holier than thou” self-satisfaction, not because you are being denied practical access to code that you are actually going to use.
Right or wrong I doubt you are the copyright holder to this code (Because judging from your spite ridden arguments on this board you would already have taken legal action) so you are in no position to enforce it. Since you have already informed the FSF, Robert, and anyone else that cares to listen, of this alleged misuse (This is the third or fourth SkyOS article you’ve pulled this stunt on) I suggest you shutup and let the involved parties deal with it amongst themselves without colour commentary from you.
Here is the bottom line. Robert indirectly admits to violating the GPL with at the very least grub. He did NOT write grub, he enhanced grub for his purposes. By doing so, he has to accept the license agreement that comes with grub. Thusfar he is not in compliance.
Basically its an issue of respect. All of you who are complaining about the people complaining about the GPL violations want our side to respect Robert’s work. We do respect Roberts work, however we want Robert to respect the work of other people when he uses it. By violating the license he is showing GREAT disrespect to those other developers without whom SkyOS would not be anywhere close to what it is right now.
If he is using BSD or similar licensed code thats fine, but no matter the code source, he should respect the authors licensing wishes. This doesn’t matter if its GPL, LGPL, MozillaPL, BSD, Apache license, etc…
By saying “shut up about the gpl, it doesnt matter if he is or isnt in violation” then you are basically saying that license violations dont matter at all. So if I took skyos, and i reworked it and renamed it into say… OphidianOS and released it saying it was my work, then thats ok.
I have respect for Robert, I personally think that skyos is shaping up to be a serious contender. Unfortunately it’s doing so at the expense of other projects.
Since if you were part of the SkyOS dev team you would already have access to the SkyOS sources I have to presume you are not. Assuming this is the case then the SkyOS specific modifications to that GPL code will be of practically no benefit to you whatsoever. Since the unmodified source is freely available for download from other sites it is quite apparent that you’re moaning about the GPL to provide yourself with “holier than thou” self-satisfaction, not because you are being denied practical access to code that you are actually going to use
Actually as a user of skyos, and hence a user of skyos’s modified grub he has a right to have a copy of the source to said modified grub delivered. Not only that, but Robert and his dev team are required to provide a written offer on said source code with any ditribution of the modified grub. They certainly don’t seem to be fulfilling their end of the bargain for using grub in the first place. They dont want to be GPL compliant? dont use grub.
Again its just a matter of respect (or lack of it on robert and his teams part)
Since if you were part of the SkyOS dev team you would already have access to the SkyOS sources I have to presume you are not. Assuming this is the case then the SkyOS specific modifications to that GPL code will be of practically no benefit to you whatsoever.
How would you know? Maybe I want to get a look at the vlc sources to see how Robert ported vlc to the SkyOS graphics layer in order to do something similar?
Adam
“”Actually as a user of skyos, and hence a user of skyos’s modified grub he has a right to have a copy of the source to said modified grub delivered. Not only that, but Robert and his dev team are required to provide a written offer on said source code with any ditribution of the modified grub. They certainly don’t seem to be fulfilling their end of the bargain for using grub in the first place. They dont want to be GPL compliant? dont use grub. “”
Yes, I know, I’ve read the GPL. The point I’m making is that any modifications the SkyOS team will have made to GRUB will be minor in the extreme and most likely be specific to SkyOS. The full unmodified GRUB sources are freely available for download elsewhere. Adam is making a huge fuss over being able to see those modifications. Aside from legal ramifications (Which IMO are best dealt with by the copyright holders themselves) it’s a very petty issue to keep harping on about.
“”Again its just a matter of respect (or lack of it on robert and his teams part)””
They haven’t renamed it, they haven’t claimed it as original work, they haven’t obfuscated its use, and they’ve indicated (By saying they use GRUB) which GPL work they’ve modified. That seems like enough respect given to the GRUB developers IMO. As far as respecting the GPL is concerned it deserves none, it’s a proprietary license in “free” clothing.
This whole thing is starting to smell more and more like the original SCO allegation justifications: “They couldn’t have got this far this fast without using our code”. (Paraphrased)
This whole thing is starting to smell more and more like the original SCO allegation justifications: “They couldn’t have got this far this fast without using our code”. (Paraphrased)
The difference being that SCO hasn’t given any proof of these violations whereas the SkyOS violations are clear to anyone who downloads the latest live SkyOS CD.
Adam
“”How would you know? Maybe I want to get a look at the vlc sources to see how Robert ported vlc to the SkyOS graphics layer in order to do something similar? “”
Is there some compelling reason you couldn’t look at the OSX/Windows/BEOS/QNX/Linux/BSD/Solaris versions of the code to determine this? Or do you just happen to be working on a project where the graphics layer is a SkyOS analogue?
Yes, I know, I’ve read the GPL. The point I’m making is that any modifications the SkyOS team will have made to GRUB will be minor in the extreme and most likely be specific to SkyOS. The full unmodified GRUB sources are freely available for download elsewhere. Adam is making a huge fuss over being able to see those modifications. Aside from legal ramifications (Which IMO are best dealt with by the copyright holders themselves) it’s a very petty issue to keep harping on about.
violating licensing is violating licensing. how trivial the change is does not matter, what matters is that there was infact a change.
They haven’t renamed it, they haven’t claimed it as original work, they haven’t obfuscated its use, and they’ve indicated (By saying they use GRUB) which GPL work they’ve modified. That seems like enough respect given to the GRUB developers IMO. As far as respecting the GPL is concerned it deserves none, it’s a proprietary license in “free” clothing.
by not respecting the wishes of the grub developer, a great deal of disrespect is being shown. the issue is not what the word “free” means in relationship to the gpl, only that the gpl governs the use of some code in skyos, and that robert and crew are not keeping up with their obligations.
This whole thing is starting to smell more and more like the original SCO allegation justifications: “They couldn’t have got this far this fast without using our code”. (Paraphrased)
Actually they wouldnt be where they are now without using grub and vlc, thats not to say they couldnt have had a bootloader nor a media player, but only that they wouldnt have the ones they are currently using. As for comparasons to SCO, this is vastly different. Robert admits to using grub (as you yourself even say). Robert admits to modifying grub (again you agree on this point). Robert is ignoring the terms and conditions set forth by the GPL license attached to grub (which, again, you admit).
It just so happens to be a GPL violation in this case, what license is being violated really doesnt matter to me as much as there is a license on that code and Robert is nearly completely ignoring said license. Then, after blatantly ignoring his obligations, he comes out and states beyond the shadow of a doubt that he infact is NOT violating the GPL in any way, shape, or form.
This really makes me wonder what other software he is using that he isnt licensed to do so (and not just gpl-ed software). There might not be any, I am not saying that there has to be, only that he IS in violation when it comes to grub and might be when it comes to vlc (i seriously doubt vlc would compile for skyos without some modification, but i am willing to give the benefit of the doubt having never tried it)
Or do you just happen to be working on a project where the graphics layer is a SkyOS analogue?
Maybe I’m just working on a port of an appliction to SkyOS?
Adam
… if he´s using GPL software then, sorry guys, he must abide by its terms. It just isn´t fair to whoever worked in those projects.
I really fail to understand the gripes that most people here have against GPL. Like someone else said, nobody is forced to use GPL code. You´re free to reinvent the wheel or borrow some BSD code if your heart desires, but please, look elsewhere if you don´t want to share your improvements/new features/whatever.
I think the GPL as some sort of gentleman´s agreement. If you wants to use my code to do something to you that´s fine but you´ll have to give me back something and to the community who also could benefit of our team work. If you don´t wanna give back anything, I´m fine with it too. Just skip me and ask the next guy if he wants to borrow you what you needs.
The GPL don´t care if you want to make the next big thing on the desktop or if you wants to be a Microsoft-killer. But if you wants to use others people hard work, you must follow their conditions.
Although I do admire Robert´s OS, if he´s really using GPL code, then I´ll be the first to ask him (nicely and politely, of course) to fullfill its terms and obligations.
Sorry about my poor English.
DeadFish Man
Adam and Ophidian, meet at my place with the rest of the gang. I have hockey sticks to go around…
It’s the negative attitude and no benefit of the doubt that is killing enthusiasm of the most brilliant developers. The majority of innovation occurs outside of corporate managed projects. Anyone in the industry knows that. Real experimental development happens outside of the corporate world. That’s because corporations want to reduce the risk of failure by playing it safe. Microsoft has extended its deadlines and pumped unimaginable amounts of money into Lonhorn to reduce the risk of failure because it doesn’t know how to innovate. Experimentation is not manageable.
Let’s stop pretending that Microsoft and other big companies are not also violating the GPL and other licenses, shall we? Anyone install Microsoft’s Unix Services for Windows? If you did, you signed an agreement concerning GPL. There is GPL’d code in Unix Services for Windows. Is Microsoft now going to give you the source code to Windows because they are integrating GPL code into the operating system? Unix Services for Windows was designed to be integrated into the operating system, thus violating the GPL on the very same principle that others are complaining that SkyOS is violating the GPL. So, lets see how serious you really are about this GPL issue, and start campaigning against Microsoft in the same way. I think it would be a safe bet that none of you will.
Given that the big boys are in violation of the GPL and nobody cares, why not lay off the little guys? After all, I can’t imagine that Robert’s personal income from SkyOS is in the billions.
In the SCO case, the GPL community is asking where the offending code is so that we can fix it. In other words, we don’t mind violating licenses now, if we can fix it later, and pretend it never happened. Why, oh, why is Robert not extended the same courtesy? Let him mature the product before pointing the finger at him and accusing him of things that you can’t prove in a court of law.
Even if Robert copied line for line all his code from other sources, the effort is trmendous to integrate all these pieces into a coherent product. Think of this – even with a full staff of developers, lots of money at his disposal, and lots of binaries and source code to rip off, Mr. Gates started his empire with only DOS. Robert has accomplished much more than DOS with less reource. And, we are to believe that the former was innovative. What does that make the latter?
Keep up the good work Robert, and ignore the nasty people who would feel better about themselves if you fail.
Let’s stop pretending that Microsoft and other big companies are not also violating the GPL and other licenses, shall we? Anyone install Microsoft’s Unix Services for Windows? If you did, you signed an agreement concerning GPL. There is GPL’d code in Unix Services for Windows. Is Microsoft now going to give you the source code to Windows because they are integrating GPL code into the operating system? Unix Services for Windows was designed to be integrated into the operating system, thus violating the GPL on the very same principle that others are complaining that SkyOS is violating the GPL. So, lets see how serious you really are about this GPL issue, and start campaigning against Microsoft in the same way. I think it would be a safe bet that none of you will.
this is a stretch, microsoft fulfilled their gpl obligations with SFU IIRC, as it was a major /. topic. The key difference, is that in this case robert isnt in compliance.
you seem to say that adam and i dont want robert/skyos to succeed. I cannot speak for adam, but i DO want it to succeed. I just want it to succeed without ignoring the licensing terms of used code.
as for the court of law comment, have you not been paying attention? robert admits to using a modified grub. robert admits to making those mods himself. he does not provide a written offer for the changes with his version of grub. thats a pretty clearcut violation IMO. oh, and btw SFU doesnt integrate into the system anymore than the cygwin project.
about the sco comparason…. sco is claiming infringement but offering no evidence to support that claim. I am claiming infringement, but i am also offering up evidence to support my claim. in the kernel case, the kernel hackers are more than willing to get rid of any infringing code so that they are compliant with licensing/copyrights belonging to sco. Robert denies any infringement (see the skyos forums) but admits to using his own modified grub, thereby admitting his violation.
SkyOS Forum:
“”Robert Szeleney on 2003-11-27 11:33:41 said:
I can send you a CDROM containing your requested sources for $12 incl. shipping cost.
Depending on your request you will get applications which are using or are based on GPL sources. I don’t distribute it on the homepage because of bandwith cost. (We already have about 40GB traffic per month).””
GPL-FAQ (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html):
“”You’re supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the mail-order option, but FTP access to the source is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL. “”
Relevant bit of GPL section 3:
“”b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; …””
So you’re what? Complaining because SkyOS doesn’t come a written offer? That’s it? That’s your whole argument?
Adam, this thread:
“”In adddition, I never received the source code to his modified version of VLC, though I did receive the source code for grub. “”
Did you ask for the VLC code? And if you did, can you point out the part of the GPL that gives a deadline between asking for and receiving that source code?
No? Hardly surprising, since there ISN’T ONE. Section 3 of the GPL is both the most contentious and weakest part of the whole license. My personal favourite is that cost of physical production doesn’t exclude machine operator labour costs, so in effect there is no limit on how much you can charge someone for a copy of the sources. I wonder just how high you’d have to put the charge to effectively produce closed-source “GPL” code.
here is the sad part, its a VERY easy thing to remedy. post the sources on the skyos.org website for download, and put a notice about it. we are talking at most 15 minutes of work to zip up those sources and at most another 15 minutes to upload them and make a link to them. also make sure that the next skyos release has a written notice about the gpl covered software thats included (might also be a good idea to have a copy of the gpl included as well).
It’s the negative attitude and no benefit of the doubt that is killing enthusiasm of the most brilliant developers…
Only partially right here, I think. What it is doing is pushing serious development to LGPL and MozillaPL (and BSD, in some cases). Which is good IMO.
The case (as I read it) is that Robert hasn’t yet completed his own loader and used GRUB as a “stop-gap”. While it may or may not be ethical, I think that the argument that the other of Robert’s sources must be also GPLed as a result is the typical IP grab that RMS and other specifically wrote the license to do. Indeed, they’ve been avoiding a court battle till now to avoid answering this “land grab” question directly. The very INTENT of the license is to push anyone using the code in whole or in part to GPL their innovations. The ethics of the whole GPL scheme come into full view (though I will agree that Robert should avoid those dodgy personages and never use the damn code).
Flame away, if you like, but the point stands. Otherwise we wouldn’t need LGPL.
“”Robert Szeleney on 2003-11-27 11:33:41 said:
I can send you a CDROM containing your requested sources for $12 incl. shipping cost.
Depending on your request you will get applications which are using or are based on GPL sources. I don’t distribute it on the homepage because of bandwith cost. (We already have about 40GB traffic per month).””
So what you’re saying is that until this morning there was no clear indication on the website that you could receive the sources as your are legally entitled to do. In fact, given that this is in the forum, and not on the download page, it’s still not clearly indicated that you can receive the sources.
So you’re what? Complaining because SkyOS doesn’t come a written offer? That’s it? That’s your whole argument?
I’m complaining because the fact that Robert has violated the GPL in this regard taints the entire project. It brings up doubts about his repeated claims that there is no GPLed code in the operating system. How is anyone supposed to believe him when he’s already disregarding the GPL?
Did you ask for the VLC code?
Of course.
And if you did, can you point out the part of the GPL that gives a deadline between asking for and receiving that source code?
No, I can’t. What’s your point? He’s already violating the license in one way.
Adam
The very INTENT of the license is to push anyone using the code in whole or in part to GPL their innovations.
Of course it is. No one is disputing that fact, and they’d be a fool to do so.
The point still stands, however: Robert is violating the GPL, and doesn’t seem to be making any effort to rectify these violations. This raises doubts about the entire project.
Adam
Adam: “”No, I can’t. What’s your point? He’s already violating the license in one way. “”
How odd. You think it’s quite reasonable to point out a delay in receiving the modified VLC sources as part of your GPL-abuse argument, and yet when I point out that your receipt or otherwise of the sources is irrelevant to GPL-abuse you question why I bring it up.
Ophidian: “”(might also be a good idea to have a copy of the gpl included as well).””
Well if they haven’t included the GPL license with the GPL covered binaries then that’s a violation. No amount of semantics can get around that :>
Adam: “”it’s still not clearly indicated that you can receive the sources. “”
If they have included the GPL license (You sure they haven’t Ophidian? That would be strange indeed) then in and of itself the license makes it clear that you are entitled to the sources, and makes it plain how long that entitlement lasts. In effect the license is itself the written offer for the sources. This is a perfectly valid use of the GPL license since Section 3 of the license dictates no conditions on the form a written offer must take, and doesn’t even force Robert to give a contact point at which sources may be requested.
“”They have not included the GPL license in the distribution:””
Oh well, guess they’re in violation then. There’s all sorts of arguments you can make if the license is actually there, but if they haven’t included a copy of the GPL when distributing GPL licensed binaries then there’s no further argument to make. *shrugs* Pretty stupid thing to leave out. If you’d just mentioned there was no license included at the start of this thread it would have saved on the number of comments :>.
if Adam (IP: —.glstrt01.nj.comcast.net) stopped spamming. A smart concerned person would have addressed the situation directly with Robert(SkyOS). But then trolls would not have their fun screwing up topics and spamming OSNews, right?
Robert refuses to directly address the situation, which is why I feel no qualms about bringing it up here. The topic at hand is SkyOS, and this is a valid concern for any user.
BTW, you are more than welcome to just skip any SkyOS articles on this site or, if you’d prefer, just skip my posts. It’s not that hard to do,
Adam
It’s obvious you have very strong feelings about this, what baffles me here I must admit, is why, if feelings are THAT strong, and you say you have had no luck trying a 1 – 1 with Robert, have you not just put forward your case to the people who govern the GPL license and then let them deal with it?, and if they don’t chase it up, then you might as well give up also.. Just give it to the pro’s.
Eugenia feels that posts concerning licensing are off-topic. This is her site and, of course, it’s her right to moderate those posts down.
So how about an on-topic post concerning licensing.
The new UI make quite a bit of use of OpenGL. The OpenGL implementation in SkyOS is really just a port of Mesa. Most of Mesa is licensed under an MIT-like license. However some parts of Mesa, such as the GLU library (which SkyOS uses) are under the LGPL.
So, then, where is the modified source for the GLU library? Or where is the written offer for the source in the SkyOS 4.0a distribution? Where, in fact, is the copy of the LGPL license that should have been included in the SkyOS distribution?
Without rectifying those problems, the new UI will be in violation of the GNU LGPL.
Adam
Since the GLU library is under the LGPL, Robert can dynamically link his new UI to it. However, he’ll still be violation for distributing a modified version of the GLU library without the source and without a written offer for the source.
Adam
That looks horrible!
When I voted for Wind UI, I must say, I was a bit sceptic. Because all GUI themes I’ve seen on SkyOS have looked terrible. Well, Murphy’s Law…
But I wish the team good luck and hope that they’ll fix those fonts, horrible background and the taskbar/panel.
Updates and Bugfixes – November 28, 2003, Robert Szeleney
Updated the SkyOS Software Installer to display the license used by the application you install. The user has to agree this license to successfully install the software package.
All package files were updated to include a copy of the used license(s).
So please, end the license-discussion here!