Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 18th May 2007 22:36 UTC, submitted by Chris Williams
RISC OS Castle and RISC OS Open have revealed the details of their 'shared source' licence - which is hoped to encourage coders to download and improve the ARM-based operating system. The wording of the licence has drawn mixed reactions, and the first batch of RISC OS source code is expected to be released tomorrow.
Thread beginning with comment 241702
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: License
by flibble on Sat 19th May 2007 09:37 UTC in reply to "License"
flibble
Member since:
2007-05-19

"but it doesn't seem to contradict Open Source Definition."

A cursory look says it breaks the Open Source definition in 3 separate ways.

1: Free redistribution - the license prevents you from shipping hardware with this code without paying a royalty.

6: No Discrimination against field of endeavour - The license prevents you from using the code on anything other the ARM based platforms.

8: License must not be specific to a product - This license is written specifically for the RISC OS product, and could not be used on other projects.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: License
by JohnOne on Sat 19th May 2007 13:21 in reply to "RE: License"
JohnOne Member since:
2006-03-25

8: License must not be specific to a product - This license is written specifically for the RISC OS product, and could not be used on other projects.


Good point, but not a real problem.
Castle's RISC OS Open Licence is a first step. At the first time even Solaris and Darwin had their own specific licences, but the successes pushed Sun and Apple to change them in more open definitions.
Time will tell us. :-)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: License
by nevali on Sat 19th May 2007 18:46 in reply to "RE[2]: License"
nevali Member since:
2006-10-12

Castle's RISC OS Open Licence is a first step. At the first time even Solaris and Darwin had their own specific licences, but the successes pushed Sun and Apple to change them in more open definitions.
Time will tell us. :-)


Sadly, I don't think there are enough people out there who would put pressure on Castle/ROOL to change the license in the same way pressure was put on Apple and Sun.

Reply Parent Score: 2