4 ms·

>It's sad that ... It's really hard to see how that would work. Most non trivial systems unwrapping the licensing etc. alone would be a huge job, let along di

by ska 3y ago

>It's sad that ... It's really hard to see how that would work. Most non trivial systems unwrapping the licensing etc. alone would be a huge job, let along disentangling from codebase used for other things, etc.

AshamedCaptain 3y ago
A lot of Windows CE licensees had access to quite a lot of the source code, or at least most of the parts that would be interesting for "maintanenace" anyway. Even though in paper Windows CE's and Android/Linux licensing could not be more different, they are in practice more similar than one would think. You'd get the source, you'd make your modifications, and you'd (not be allowed to|get away with) not redistribute the source.
- garaetjjte 3y ago
  Windows CE Platform Builder did come with large part of sources, including entire kernel. Notable omissions were GWES (windowing subsystem) and filesystem drivers.
- g-b-r 3y ago
  I remember being able to find documentation for some Windows aspects only in Windows CE stuff, I guess that's the reason!!!
cogman10 3y ago
Is cross licensing really a big issue with closed source software? At least where I work, my software is basically 100% backed by open-source software. If the company wanted to, some of our larger and more complex systems would be trivial to open source as the only proprietary software they use is our own. For an OS, I could see there being issues around drivers. However, it seems like the actual core of the OS would be pretty trivial to open source.
- tomcam 3y ago
  > Is cross licensing really a big issue with closed source software? Sure is. Microsoft works with thousands of vendors every year. There are lots of different terms under which they license software. It would not be that unusual for a game or utility or promotional item to be licensed for a version or so, and nothing after that. Very often these vendors vanish into the ether, and cannot be tracked down for any purpose at all, much less asking them to open source their software. Then, if you tried to ask them to open source, they might mistakenly see dollar signs and try to get money out of Microsoft when none is forthcoming.
  - cogman10 3y ago
    > Microsoft works with thousands of vendors every year. There are lots of different terms under which they license software. This is a cart before the horse thing. How MS licenses software in the past has no bearing on adding a new open source license. The only time this would be a problem is distributing 3rd party source code. Which, AFAIK (and this is windows we are talking about) pretty much only happens in the drivers. Windows CE didn't come bundled with steam or really hardly anything. That was sort of the point of CE is it had almost nothing on it.
- toast0 3y ago
  My experience has been mostly with software that's either open source, or wholly in-house developed. But I've gathered from open sourcing discussions, that it's pretty common for closed source software to license libraries and other bits and bobs from other closed source vendors. Especially closed source software from long ago, when there was less to take from open source.
Zambyte 3y ago
It's actually very easy to see: repeal copyright. It does nothing but impose artificial scarcity to make the landlords rich, at the expense of progress that cannot be made due to licensing restrictions.
- malfist 3y ago
  I'm sorry, copywriter laws make landlords rich? That doesn't follow
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    IP landlords, not land landlords. It was a metaphor.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    Rent seeking behaviors
- ralmidani 3y ago
  Be careful what you wish for. Repealing copyright without also making DRM and EULAs illegal would probably do more harm than good.
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    I actually don't think DRM should be illegal. I think that when we are no longer encumbered by copyright, moving past systems that kneecap themselves with DRM will be much easier, so long as the existence of DRM does not hold any legal value either, a la DMCA. EULAs are obviously bogus though, yeah.
  - Karellen 3y ago
    DRM is enabled by copyright law. DRM only works because talking about how to break it, and collaborating on tools that enable breaking it, is illegal - because of copyright law. DRM relies on giving people the ciphertext, and the decoder, the decryption key, and a way to use those to recover the plaintext, and trying to prevent them from figuring out the decryption key for themselves. Without copyright law backing it up, it's toothless. Get rid of copyright, get rid of DRM. Also, EULAs are only enforceable due to the fiction that running software without accepting one is a breach of copyright. Without copyright, EULAs are pointless, and anyone can write and distribute tiny programs to patch out EULA acceptance screens or license key verifiers, because copyright law won't prevent them from doing so. Get rid of copyright, get rid of EULAs.
charles_f 3y ago
Fair. Yet something as core as an OS should be planned to be OS'ed once you don't want to maintain it. Even just the fact that it's non trivial and large would justify to structure code for new joiners. Large tech companies all try to pass as green nowadays, yet consider the waste that throwing away code that would likely interest others represents - even after two decades of service.

by ska 3y ago

AshamedCaptain 3y ago

A lot of Windows CE licensees had access to quite a lot of the source code, or at least most of the parts that would be interesting for "maintanenace" anyway. Even though in paper Windows CE's and Android/Linux licensing could not be more different, they are in practice more similar than one would think. You'd get the source, you'd make your modifications, and you'd (not be allowed to|get away with) not redistribute the source.

garaetjjte 3y ago
Windows CE Platform Builder did come with large part of sources, including entire kernel. Notable omissions were GWES (windowing subsystem) and filesystem drivers.
g-b-r 3y ago
I remember being able to find documentation for some Windows aspects only in Windows CE stuff, I guess that's the reason!!!

cogman10 3y ago

Is cross licensing really a big issue with closed source software? At least where I work, my software is basically 100% backed by open-source software. If the company wanted to, some of our larger and more complex systems would be trivial to open source as the only proprietary software they use is our own. For an OS, I could see there being issues around drivers. However, it seems like the actual core of the OS would be pretty trivial to open source.

tomcam 3y ago
> Is cross licensing really a big issue with closed source software? Sure is. Microsoft works with thousands of vendors every year. There are lots of different terms under which they license software. It would not be that unusual for a game or utility or promotional item to be licensed for a version or so, and nothing after that. Very often these vendors vanish into the ether, and cannot be tracked down for any purpose at all, much less asking them to open source their software. Then, if you tried to ask them to open source, they might mistakenly see dollar signs and try to get money out of Microsoft when none is forthcoming.
- cogman10 3y ago
  > Microsoft works with thousands of vendors every year. There are lots of different terms under which they license software. This is a cart before the horse thing. How MS licenses software in the past has no bearing on adding a new open source license. The only time this would be a problem is distributing 3rd party source code. Which, AFAIK (and this is windows we are talking about) pretty much only happens in the drivers. Windows CE didn't come bundled with steam or really hardly anything. That was sort of the point of CE is it had almost nothing on it.
toast0 3y ago
My experience has been mostly with software that's either open source, or wholly in-house developed. But I've gathered from open sourcing discussions, that it's pretty common for closed source software to license libraries and other bits and bobs from other closed source vendors. Especially closed source software from long ago, when there was less to take from open source.

Zambyte 3y ago

It's actually very easy to see: repeal copyright. It does nothing but impose artificial scarcity to make the landlords rich, at the expense of progress that cannot be made due to licensing restrictions.

malfist 3y ago
I'm sorry, copywriter laws make landlords rich? That doesn't follow
- Zambyte 3y ago
  IP landlords, not land landlords. It was a metaphor.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  Rent seeking behaviors
ralmidani 3y ago
Be careful what you wish for. Repealing copyright without also making DRM and EULAs illegal would probably do more harm than good.
- Zambyte 3y ago
  I actually don't think DRM should be illegal. I think that when we are no longer encumbered by copyright, moving past systems that kneecap themselves with DRM will be much easier, so long as the existence of DRM does not hold any legal value either, a la DMCA. EULAs are obviously bogus though, yeah.
- Karellen 3y ago
  DRM is enabled by copyright law. DRM only works because talking about how to break it, and collaborating on tools that enable breaking it, is illegal - because of copyright law. DRM relies on giving people the ciphertext, and the decoder, the decryption key, and a way to use those to recover the plaintext, and trying to prevent them from figuring out the decryption key for themselves. Without copyright law backing it up, it's toothless. Get rid of copyright, get rid of DRM. Also, EULAs are only enforceable due to the fiction that running software without accepting one is a breach of copyright. Without copyright, EULAs are pointless, and anyone can write and distribute tiny programs to patch out EULA acceptance screens or license key verifiers, because copyright law won't prevent them from doing so. Get rid of copyright, get rid of EULAs.

charles_f 3y ago

Fair. Yet something as core as an OS should be planned to be OS'ed once you don't want to maintain it. Even just the fact that it's non trivial and large would justify to structure code for new joiners. Large tech companies all try to pass as green nowadays, yet consider the waste that throwing away code that would likely interest others represents - even after two decades of service.