(04-02-2018 07:35 AM)Ángel Martin Wrote:  I'm not aware of any GPL-bound module in the set, but according to some forum members it seems I don't really understand what GPL is about.

FWIW all my modules are "FREEWARE". I understand that. Nuff said.

(04-08-2018 07:47 PM)hth Wrote:  David Assembler
Eramco MLDL
NFCROM (ProtoTECH)
CCD Module
ML-rom
Hepax

(04-08-2018 07:47 PM)hth Wrote:  Sandmath_44 4x4 from February 2015
Page 2
"No commercial usage of any kind is allowed."
"Published under the GNU software licence agreement."

Does putting it on a 41CL board count as commercial usage? It does cost money.

(04-08-2018 08:20 PM)Massimo Gnerucci Wrote:  Don't all of these predate the issue of GPLv2?

(04-08-2018 07:47 PM)hth Wrote:  I lift this out as a separate thread. The original discussion is in http://www.hpmuseum.org/forum/thread-10405.html in the "Not quite HP Calculators - but related" area.

As there has been a lot of discussions about the GPL license in that area of the forum recently and I mentioned that there are many HP-41 modules released under GPL, to which Ángel responded:

(04-02-2018 07:35 AM)Ángel Martin Wrote:  I'm not aware of any GPL-bound module in the set, but according to some forum members it seems I don't really understand what GPL is about.

FWIW all my modules are "FREEWARE". I understand that. Nuff said.

Quote:I do understand that you are very generous as well as extremely productive, and I am very thankful for that.

But if we look at it closer on the overall picture, there may be an issue in how the GPL license is used in this community. I will now make you all aware by taking a quick (and most likely incomplete) tour around the TOS DVD:

Sandmath_44 4x4 from February 2015
Page 2
"No commercial usage of any kind is allowed."
"Published under the GNU software licence agreement."

Quote:Does putting it on a 41CL board count as commercial usage? It does cost money.

(04-08-2018 08:07 PM)pier4r Wrote:  Just throwing ideas around.

If a module is GPL, it shouldn't collide with the board, as the board can work without the module. Is that correct?

If a module is GPL, and one requests the source. One can gladly say "look I don't have them but I will try to forward the request". If the original author is not reachable to get the sources, that's it. Or not? I don't know if the middleman has the duty to provide sources he himself did not get. Does anyone with more experience know?

According to the recent -heated- discussions problems arise when something makes use of GPLed solutions and cannot work without them.

Those modules seems independent (I do not have a 41CL so I do not know) and a problem could be the absence of sources, that may have been not provided to begin with.

In other words. If I use a work from the past to not let it disappear. Should I honor the license forever, although the situation doesn't allow me to comply? In this case I mean: unreachable authors to ask them for the source.

I am not sure whether the GPL prohibits commercial returns, I think not though.

(04-08-2018 08:25 PM)Ángel Martin Wrote:  The way I see it, there's much we should be thankful for to the efforts of folks that still today are putting a lot of effort to preserve the legacy of this machine. Frankly I don't see the point you want to make with this; raising this as a potential issue at this point in the game (more than 3o years after the obsolescence of the platform) seems off-base to me.

(04-08-2018 09:52 PM)Mike (Stgt) Wrote:  

(04-08-2018 07:47 PM)hth Wrote:  [...] GPL comes with obligations for the middle man, the one who distributes a collection [...]

Thank you for starting this 'law suit' thread, so I may ask the collected experts. MoHPC has under 'HP Software Libraries' four forums where I plan to publish a "bigger-than-the-usual" collection of routines (about 1300 lines, typcally my other programs are just 20..200 lines). In contrast to the smaller programs which I regard as 'sooner or later anyone else would have come across the same solution of this problem', as such they are nothing special, 'give away' for free, without license.

But this "bigger" thing (but not big enough to make money with it) did cost me some effort and I'd like to bind it to the QPL -- Q Public License. I want to be informed in case someone is able to improve it.

Questions:

1. Is it allowed to publish in a MoHPC forum progrms with a license at will? (I did not find a forum behaviour specification).
2. What impact would such licensed SW have on MoHPC?
3. Will I ever notice if someone offends against the license, for example, runs a modified version without telling me?

I don't know common law, I'd ask my Ma.

/M.

1. Others can probably answer this, but unless MoHPC states otherwise, I would assume it is allowed (if what is done seems reasonable).
2. Nothing, it is not linked together in any way. You put your distribution there and that is it.
3. Unless your software has a hidden call home to papa feature, you will not notice unless you happen to stumble over it.
   

(04-08-2018 07:47 PM)hth Wrote:  The point I try to make here is that GPL comes with obligations for the middle man, the one who distributes a collection of ROMs, as (s)he needs to make the user aware of that they have received GPL software and are entitled to request the source code.

If we do not want to go through these chores, we can always look in another direction and pretend nothing has happened (violating the GPL license). We can also learn to try and use a more appropriate license on our efforts. Maybe some of you embrace GPL and think it is worth the trouble caused (to others), then I respect your opinion, but I will not agree.

I am all in favour of taking good care of the source code and making it available, but I do not want to impose a lot of burden on unaware people.

Håkan

(04-09-2018 12:07 AM)Monte Dalrymple Wrote:  Which of these are you suggesting that I do:

1. Try to find the source code and somehow make it available?
or 2. Include a statement that says GPL requires source code be available?
or 3. Remove the GPL ROMs from the 41CL Flash?

1. Technically there may be GPL source around here, but one can raise suspicion to whether that is indeed true (in almost every case). Thus, carry on as before.
2. In the future I hope people can be a little bit more considerate on using GPL, and perhaps consider some other license, and do it little bit more correct.
3. It would be nice if we could collect the knowledge about which modules we have the source code for and where it can be found.
   

(04-09-2018 03:23 AM)Geir Isene Wrote:  I would like to make a public statement here and now that all my HP calculator related work is released into the Public Domain with absolutely no strings attached. I will change the license accordingly on all my modules and programs in the coming weeks as I get back from my business trips.

(04-09-2018 05:07 AM)Mike (Stgt) Wrote:  What is the source of works for an HP-41 user language routine? There are typically no inline comments that explain this and that. Take following snippet as an example, which could be part of a program or it could be used as stand alone, how shold the source for it look like? A write up that deserves to be called a complete documentation or is a user manual with formulas adequate? Or no formula but a remark about the idea behind it?

(04-09-2018 04:49 AM)Geir Isene Wrote:  As far as I can decipher, this would narrow the problem down to just these modules:

Code:


David Assembler
Eramco MLDL
NFCROM (ProtoTECH)
CCD Module
Landnav
Knights Tour
ML-rom
Hepax

And I guess David Assembler, Eramco MLDL, Hepax or CCD is not really GPL?

(04-09-2018 04:49 AM)Geir Isene Wrote:  As far as I can decipher, this would narrow the problem down to just these modules:

Code:


...
Knights Tour
...