One thing is have source code publicated, and other thing is allow people to modify it, altough I think you can make your own I guess you whant some thing like people can read you code if they whant to learn, but they can not take it for his own porpuose or some like that??

That still wouldn't work well. You prevent others from contributing, and while people could learn from it, they wouldn't always be able to take what they learned and use it (since many things you learn are ways to code things better).

I dont understand specially the part "(since many things you learn are ways to code things better)"

I guess people can still contribute to such a project... only that you are more centralized...

For example, you can still suguest a modification or a best way to do X thing, pheraphs inclusively a replacement for x part of code, only that the ownder of the code is the one responsible for do the modification of the code and not the normal way used in todays open source codes that you can make the modification for yourself and you should publicate the source code if you whant distribute it...

=========

I correct myself, the part that I dont understand is: "they wouldn't always be able to take what they learned and use it"... for what&why not???? like I understand you are protecting your code, not the ideas that people can learn from it.. is like when you read a book , the author can not prohibit you to use what you hae learned there, but can prohibit that you copy is entire/parts of book...

I see... I guess gpl is good as long as they don'd take all your code and change the names and things (and give no credit to them).

Jas20

And that's one of the things the GPL ensures: contributors to a project will get full credit for their work.

Let's say that you have a license that says you can read the code, but not use it in your programs. If the code has a really good function, say a novel, fast & tight string comparison routine, you can't take that and use it. Changing it, if optomized heavily already, would make it less efficient. In a case like that, you can't use something you learn. (I'd also like to point out that a license saying that one can take individual routines, but not the entirety of the program is a difficult line to draw. At what point do you start infringing? Take all but one routine, and rewrite that yourself?)

One thing i do not like about the GPL,is about a year or so a go there was some code, that was done for linux under the GPL, this bit of code has a security risk, some one made a program to find this bit of code, so they could fix it, just to see he made a windows ver and there was more of this code in windows then in linux,
not only had they used the code, but they did not acknowledge the coders who made, and not one thing was done, but sky os did the same and was threatened.

So it's one rule for small co and another for big co.

I would like to barter code, say a floppy and a atapi module for a USB module, O go on then i will throw in a hdd module , any takers ? .

\\\\||////
(@@)
ASHLEY4.

Batteries not included, Some assembly required.

That's not true. In the case you mentioned, the GPL was clearly violated. You can say that it makes no difference unless you have funds to pursue legal action, but that's a different set of troubles... Once the code is out there, anyone can potentially take it and use it however they like. Open Source is sort of based on an "honour system".



Nope, I share most of my code freely (by releasing it to the public domain). It's really a good approach for me

I was only joking about bartering, i believe in free code too or how would us from the non-boltic countrys, get our code .

\\\\||////
(@@)
ASHLEY4.

Batteries not included, Some assembly required.

i am interested in the ATAPI module for SolOS

mmm, but like you say, you are only taking one functional, compact, self contained, I guess that a string copy isnt a good example because you can get it from the supose kernel and use it a in a source editor...

But supose that you whant to copy dont know.. for example a good routine for manage windows, but then you see that procedure have cohersion with other modules, memory, kernel objects and you need copy more of the code.

By the way, like I understand now, the copyright is first obtained (before the Licenses) then the Licenses modelate over such right.

If you take a book of operating systems, you can use the ideas of the book because it show: multitasking, memory manegament, etc. But the author dosent say you that you can not use what you have learned, also his work is protected against a republication if you try to redistribute it (without permission of the author or the publicator... depending if the author has gived some of his right to the other party), also is protected against a copy saying that you are the author.


Like you see the copyright is suficient in the case of books, but now in the case of software there come the Licenses, that are a form (in my point of view) to modelate such copyright, being you the owner because is your publication, you can make a License that modelate the rights that you have aquired being the Original Author.

Also see that the words "derivate work" are sayed first in the copyright than for example GPL.

In this case you can modelate being the owner what you whant of your work... I guess there is a way, because you have watched enterily the impact of only copyright in books, I guess you know already you hae experience in the subject (you have readed books and used derivations and the knowledge aquired there)...

In fact the copyright give you this things: publicate it (To perform the work publicly), reproduct it, make a derivate work of your work, to distribute copies [or phonorecords], To display the copyrighted work publicly. And also give you the right to authorize others to do the anterior if you whant. Is by that you can give a License, is by that you can make a contract.

http://www.copyright.gov


I guess there should be a nice way of a License (dont know), near to let intact the copyright, because will be near the same that read a book that you can learn from others work but not say that is your work or copy all the work... I have my taught against and favour of GPL, but I still reading it and rereading and making my interpretations for understand it completely. Also I have defined in a crude way what is a derivation.

By the way, because copyright is the first to say about drivated works, a derivation can be in my point of view, if you watch x movie and then some one ask you how was the movie?, you say: was wonderfull, when the actor t... that comment is a derivation of the work , if the person that has questioned you without watch the movie make a derivation in his own terms still a derivation some like the rule a<b and b<c then a< c. A independent work can be some one that without being questionated about the movie or have listened the name of the movie can make near the same history or have a comment like the one that you have after watch the movie...
hehe, I was watching some thing about Nostradamuss (is writed like that?), supose wath he watched in his days was a independent work, the sucesions of history and such being in fact is say the work of the author, you can make derivations of this work, descrive the history or manipulate the history like you whant, but what have do in the past Nostradamuss is a real independent work...


[edit]

By the way, the copyright work for the books because they receive money for the distribution of the reproductions, they also protect the work to be geted not from the original distributors, is also protected against copy, but the dereivations are a interesting.... very interesting subject, you can watch from where a book is derivated watching is references to others books, autors works or the bibliography.

Altought there is not a License (or I havent watched one inside a book) that talk about derivated works, you can apply what you have learned and the knowledge aquired there is a derivation of the book (altought you knowledge is your but is a derivation for example: platon->Aristoteles dont know if is the order , but one derivate from the other, altought like I know there where diferents in his school), but you can use this derivations freely, what you cant do is with your derivations construct a book 90% equal pheraphs not 5%, but I need use my derivations for do a diferent work (altought one part will still a derivation of).... a new school, a new work...

Hello ASHLEY4!

In yours OS it is possible it will be switched between tasks?

No, it's single tasking.

like bubach said its single tasking, its designed to run one program very fast, like the xbox.
I can run the game Halo, faster on my xbox ( which is just a 700 Mhz pc) than on my 2.8 Ghz pc, this is in part due to the fact that it is single tasking and a basic 150k kernel, and our OS is based on the way the xbox runs programs.
We do not want to be a desktop OS, but this does not mean we will not have a GUI, because we will.
What the OS does, is allows you to load from a floppy, cd, hdd etc, a program in to a 32bit pmode environment, with full access to all memory and hardware, but at the same time you have access to a full range of interrupts, to make programming easier, + function to help make gui.
There's also a module interface for adding drivers etc.

\\\\||////
(@@)
ASHLEY4.

Batteries not included, Some assembly required.