5 ms·

Edit: Licensing consists of ARR, Public Domain and MIT. https://github.com/rtestardi/StickOS2/blob/main/license.txt https://github.com/rtestardi/StickOS2/blob/

Edit: Licensing consists of ARR, Public Domain and MIT. https://github.com/rtestardi/StickOS2/blob/main/license.txt https://github.com/rtestardi/StickOS2/blob/main/license.txt https://github.com/rtestardi/usbte/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/rtestardi/usbte/blob/master/LICENSE

turtleyacht 2y ago
All Rights Reserved (ARR)
- analog31 2y ago
  Also, looks like some parts are patented. https://patents.google.com/patent/US8117587B1 https://patents.google.com/patent/US8117587B1
  - burgerone 2y ago
    Correct. What should I replace "FOSS" with so that the title stays short and concise but correctly reflects the licensing/rights situation? I'm very new to posting on this platform.
    - fragmede 2y ago
      "partially source available" is maybe a bit long, but something along those lines?
    - gpm 2y ago
      My advice is to stay away from "FOSS" unless you're GPL, and "open source" unless you're an OSI-certified license. It's not that I don't think those terms apply to anything other than that, but using those terms invites debate about licensing and attempts to control language instead of discussion of your project. "Source available" is a term that usually no one gets mad at.
    - analog31 2y ago
      Good question, and I sympathize. The thread title as of this moment (subject to moderator edit) says "source available" which seems reasonable. So I don't think you made a mistake. "With published design" might also work. I've got my own little GitHub page with projects that I share. They usually involve both hardware and code. I'm also not an engineer, but a scientist and electronics hobbyist, both of which have cultures of open design that predate the software industry. What I do with my projects is attach a MIT license, attribute the sources of any code or ideas that I borrow from elsewhere, and wish you good luck. ;-)
  - rmu09 2y ago
    Strange patent. At first glance you could do something similar with an intel 8052AH BASIC (a 8051 type microcontroller with integrated basic interpreter) back in the 90ies.
    - analog31 2y ago
      Indeed, I built simple industrial controllers from 8052AH-BASIC chips. And lots of patents are strange. Sometimes the examination process results in a narrowing of the claims to the point where they don't really read on anything.
bramhaag 2y ago
edit: parent was heavily edited, so this comment makes less sense now. Note that calling this FOSS is completely inaccurate. Some parts are all rights reserved, some are public domain and some are only available for non-commercial use. Public domain is not open source, and especially not free (as in freedom). Restricting commercial use is also not free. At best, this project is partially source-available.
- throawayonthe 2y ago
  [dead]
- patrick451 2y ago
  The only thing more frustrating than a rustacaen redefining "safety" to suit their purpose is a Stallman discipline redefining freedom to mean something totally weird. Something in the public domain is not free? Give me a break.
  - tonetegeatinst 2y ago
    Can I get some context for the rustacian safety thing? I'm honestly interested if that's real.
    - gpm 2y ago
      "Memory safety" is a concept that predates rust, but was certainly popularized by it. It refers to statically eliminating a category of bugs - those related to misusing memory - and all sources of undefined behavior. Rust code without unsafe blocks guarantees memory safety, and when you're writing unsafe blocks you're culturally expected to expose a safe-api that upholds rust's memory safety guarantees for users who don't themselves use unsafe blocks. Rust programmers (rustaceans, a pun on crustacean because the language mascot is a crustacean) tend to extol the virtues of memory safety [1], and are sometimes lax with using the word "safety" to refer to "memory safety". There are obviously non-memory-safety safety considerations as well (e.g. the other 1/3rds of security vulnerabilities. Or all the non-software uses of the word like making buildings that don't fall down). Personally I think it's usually pretty clear how the word is being used, and don't find it annoying. But then I'm a rust programmer. [1] E.g. pointing out that roughly 2/3rds of security vulnerabilities are caused by the lack of it.

turtleyacht 2y ago

analog31 2y ago
Also, looks like some parts are patented. https://patents.google.com/patent/US8117587B1 https://patents.google.com/patent/US8117587B1
- burgerone 2y ago
  Correct. What should I replace "FOSS" with so that the title stays short and concise but correctly reflects the licensing/rights situation? I'm very new to posting on this platform.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    "partially source available" is maybe a bit long, but something along those lines?
  - gpm 2y ago
    My advice is to stay away from "FOSS" unless you're GPL, and "open source" unless you're an OSI-certified license. It's not that I don't think those terms apply to anything other than that, but using those terms invites debate about licensing and attempts to control language instead of discussion of your project. "Source available" is a term that usually no one gets mad at.
  - analog31 2y ago
    Good question, and I sympathize. The thread title as of this moment (subject to moderator edit) says "source available" which seems reasonable. So I don't think you made a mistake. "With published design" might also work. I've got my own little GitHub page with projects that I share. They usually involve both hardware and code. I'm also not an engineer, but a scientist and electronics hobbyist, both of which have cultures of open design that predate the software industry. What I do with my projects is attach a MIT license, attribute the sources of any code or ideas that I borrow from elsewhere, and wish you good luck. ;-)
- rmu09 2y ago
  Strange patent. At first glance you could do something similar with an intel 8052AH BASIC (a 8051 type microcontroller with integrated basic interpreter) back in the 90ies.
  - analog31 2y ago
    Indeed, I built simple industrial controllers from 8052AH-BASIC chips. And lots of patents are strange. Sometimes the examination process results in a narrowing of the claims to the point where they don't really read on anything.

bramhaag 2y ago

edit: parent was heavily edited, so this comment makes less sense now. Note that calling this FOSS is completely inaccurate. Some parts are all rights reserved, some are public domain and some are only available for non-commercial use. Public domain is not open source, and especially not free (as in freedom). Restricting commercial use is also not free. At best, this project is partially source-available.

throawayonthe 2y ago
[dead]
patrick451 2y ago
The only thing more frustrating than a rustacaen redefining "safety" to suit their purpose is a Stallman discipline redefining freedom to mean something totally weird. Something in the public domain is not free? Give me a break.
- tonetegeatinst 2y ago
  Can I get some context for the rustacian safety thing? I'm honestly interested if that's real.
  - gpm 2y ago
    "Memory safety" is a concept that predates rust, but was certainly popularized by it. It refers to statically eliminating a category of bugs - those related to misusing memory - and all sources of undefined behavior. Rust code without unsafe blocks guarantees memory safety, and when you're writing unsafe blocks you're culturally expected to expose a safe-api that upholds rust's memory safety guarantees for users who don't themselves use unsafe blocks. Rust programmers (rustaceans, a pun on crustacean because the language mascot is a crustacean) tend to extol the virtues of memory safety [1], and are sometimes lax with using the word "safety" to refer to "memory safety". There are obviously non-memory-safety safety considerations as well (e.g. the other 1/3rds of security vulnerabilities. Or all the non-software uses of the word like making buildings that don't fall down). Personally I think it's usually pretty clear how the word is being used, and don't find it annoying. But then I'm a rust programmer. [1] E.g. pointing out that roughly 2/3rds of security vulnerabilities are caused by the lack of it.