4 ms·

$ tar xzvf Xinu-code-Galileo.tar.gz $ cd Xinu-code-Galileo/ $ cat COPYRIGHT <<<begin COPYRIGHT>>> Portions of this software are covered by the following copy

$ tar xzvf Xinu-code-Galileo.tar.gz $ cd Xinu-code-Galileo/ $ cat COPYRIGHT <<<begin COPYRIGHT>>> Portions of this software are covered by the following copyright: Copyright (c) 2012, 2015 Douglas E. Comer and CRC Press, Inc. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that this notice is preserved and that due credit is given to the copyright holders. The names of the copyright holders may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. This software is provided `as is'' without express or implied warranty. The author assumes no liability for damages incidental or consequential, nor is the software warranted for correctness or suitability for any purpose. Portions of this software are documented in the book: Operating System Design -- The Xinu Approach, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, Linksys version 2012, Second Edition 2015. This software may not be sold or published in printed form without written permission from the copyright holders. <<<<end COPYRIGHT>>>

naniwaduni 7y ago
It never ceases to astound me how many minor variants on 3-clause BSD retain clause 4 (the endorsement clause), despite not carrying the historical baggage of clause 3 (the advertising clause). It made sense for 4-clause BSD (and its unbulleted predecessor) as a qualifier on clause 3: although advertising materials must contain the acknowledgement, it should not be presented such that could be misconstrued as an endorsement. Even when striking clause 3, clause 4 remained inoffensive enough to not warrant making more than the minimal change. But for new work without that history, it's a total non sequitur.
- JdeBP 7y ago
  You have an odd definition of "new work". My copy of the first Xinu book is dated 1984, pre-dating the invention of the GNU General Public Licence by half a decade.
  - naniwaduni 7y ago
    Whatever the provenance of the content, the license is almost certainly newer than 4-clause BSD, evidenced by +endorse/-advertising clauses. This has nothing whatsoever to do with GPL.
    - JdeBP 7y ago
      You were the one that brought up the provenance, by erroneously classififying Xinu as "new work without that history". Now you are trying to have your cake and eat it by trying to hand wave away the very thing that you yourself brought up. Quite clearly, something from 1984 (actually earlier) is not "new work", and has a history: a history that pre-dates by half a decade even the very invention of one of the major free software copyright licences. If you do not understand why the non-existence of the GPL at the time of first publication is relevant to the history of something being copyright licenced the way that it is, then you have a lot of computing history to learn, including all of the things that the world went through after the first publication of Xinu when it came to ideas in software copyright licencing. Xinu dates from a time when in order to run BSD one had to have an AT&T source licence.
dwheeler 7y ago
The first part is a standard BSD license, however it has a weird extra restriction. It cannot be sold or published in printed form. That is a restriction on use that almost certainly makes it not open source software. It certainly isn't a common license. Game over. But even if it was open source software, it's unreasonable for people to have to untar that file on a phone. As I posted earlier, if it's OSS, that info needs to be a lot clearer. It certainly needs to be on the front pagd. Requiring a untar is absurd for such basic information. As a piece of history, it's cool, though I think the Lyons book is more important.
- JdeBP 7y ago
  In years gone by, it was common practice to look inside archive files to inspect README files and suchlike. Certainly, one is quite reasonably expected to look inside an archive of a teaching operating system where reading and understanding the source tree is part of the process. I think that you are unwittingly making a strong case for your 'phone being the wrong tool for the job. (-:
  - dwheeler 7y ago
    > In years gone by, it was common practice to look inside archive files to inspect README files and suchlike. That's true, I did it many times. But those years are long ago. Good riddance. Most of the time today, for most people, a smartphone is the only tool you have available at the moment. When I made that comment I was nowhere near my laptops or desktops or tablet, and I think that's true for many people today. According to Statcounter the majority of pages viewed today are viewed using a smartphone: https://gs.statcounter.com/platform-market-share/desktop-mobile-tablet https://gs.statcounter.com/platform-market-share/desktop-mob... > Certainly, one is quite reasonably expected to look inside an archive of a teaching operating system where reading and understanding the source tree is part of the process. Not to find out the license. A license is important information that you need to know before you look at the archive. I'm don't think it's even reasonable today to ask that people unarchive just to look at some code. GitHub, GitLab, SourceForge, and many other forges/repo sites make it quite easy to look at code without having to download and look inside an archive. By all means provide a simple link to download its archive (GitHub does this automatically), but it's also important to give people an easy way to look at its individual source files using a URL. I'll note that the Linux kernel does this just fine. Things are hard enough on potential developers and potential users. Developers should work to make it easy for potential users and potential users. If nothing else, their projects are more likely to do well that well.

naniwaduni 7y ago

It never ceases to astound me how many minor variants on 3-clause BSD retain clause 4 (the endorsement clause), despite not carrying the historical baggage of clause 3 (the advertising clause). It made sense for 4-clause BSD (and its unbulleted predecessor) as a qualifier on clause 3: although advertising materials must contain the acknowledgement, it should not be presented such that could be misconstrued as an endorsement. Even when striking clause 3, clause 4 remained inoffensive enough to not warrant making more than the minimal change. But for new work without that history, it's a total non sequitur.

JdeBP 7y ago
You have an odd definition of "new work". My copy of the first Xinu book is dated 1984, pre-dating the invention of the GNU General Public Licence by half a decade.
- naniwaduni 7y ago
  Whatever the provenance of the content, the license is almost certainly newer than 4-clause BSD, evidenced by +endorse/-advertising clauses. This has nothing whatsoever to do with GPL.
  - JdeBP 7y ago
    You were the one that brought up the provenance, by erroneously classififying Xinu as "new work without that history". Now you are trying to have your cake and eat it by trying to hand wave away the very thing that you yourself brought up. Quite clearly, something from 1984 (actually earlier) is not "new work", and has a history: a history that pre-dates by half a decade even the very invention of one of the major free software copyright licences. If you do not understand why the non-existence of the GPL at the time of first publication is relevant to the history of something being copyright licenced the way that it is, then you have a lot of computing history to learn, including all of the things that the world went through after the first publication of Xinu when it came to ideas in software copyright licencing. Xinu dates from a time when in order to run BSD one had to have an AT&T source licence.

dwheeler 7y ago

The first part is a standard BSD license, however it has a weird extra restriction. It cannot be sold or published in printed form. That is a restriction on use that almost certainly makes it not open source software. It certainly isn't a common license. Game over. But even if it was open source software, it's unreasonable for people to have to untar that file on a phone. As I posted earlier, if it's OSS, that info needs to be a lot clearer. It certainly needs to be on the front pagd. Requiring a untar is absurd for such basic information. As a piece of history, it's cool, though I think the Lyons book is more important.

JdeBP 7y ago
In years gone by, it was common practice to look inside archive files to inspect README files and suchlike. Certainly, one is quite reasonably expected to look inside an archive of a teaching operating system where reading and understanding the source tree is part of the process. I think that you are unwittingly making a strong case for your 'phone being the wrong tool for the job. (-:
- dwheeler 7y ago
  > In years gone by, it was common practice to look inside archive files to inspect README files and suchlike. That's true, I did it many times. But those years are long ago. Good riddance. Most of the time today, for most people, a smartphone is the only tool you have available at the moment. When I made that comment I was nowhere near my laptops or desktops or tablet, and I think that's true for many people today. According to Statcounter the majority of pages viewed today are viewed using a smartphone: https://gs.statcounter.com/platform-market-share/desktop-mobile-tablet https://gs.statcounter.com/platform-market-share/desktop-mob... > Certainly, one is quite reasonably expected to look inside an archive of a teaching operating system where reading and understanding the source tree is part of the process. Not to find out the license. A license is important information that you need to know before you look at the archive. I'm don't think it's even reasonable today to ask that people unarchive just to look at some code. GitHub, GitLab, SourceForge, and many other forges/repo sites make it quite easy to look at code without having to download and look inside an archive. By all means provide a simple link to download its archive (GitHub does this automatically), but it's also important to give people an easy way to look at its individual source files using a URL. I'll note that the Linux kernel does this just fine. Things are hard enough on potential developers and potential users. Developers should work to make it easy for potential users and potential users. If nothing else, their projects are more likely to do well that well.