[Oberon] Introduce myself (on "public domain")

[Till Oliver Knoll]

> Am 22.02.2019 um 16:24 schrieb John R. Strohm <strohm at airmail.net>:
> 
> 
> Colby, Liam's language is correct, as far as it goes.
> 
> There are three (3) categories, besides proprietary/closed source.
> 
> 1.  Free Software, as mentioned by Liam and defined by the Free Software Foundation.  Requires redistribution of source changes if changed binaries are redistributed.
> 
> 2.  Public domain
> 
> 3.  "Open Source", as mentioned by you and "defined" by various people.  Somewhere in there, but different licenses have different rules.
> 
> You really should familiarize yourself with the Free Software body of knowledge, and WHY Stallman et al insisted on doing it the way they did.  You also should look at why the various people pushing "Open Source" and denigrating "Free Software" are doing that.
> 
> --- oberon at x.colbyrussell.com wrote:
> 
> From: <oberon at x.colbyrussell.com>
> To: <fp at vonck.nl>, ETH Oberon and related systems <oberon at lists.inf.ethz.ch>
> Subject: Re: [Oberon] Introduce myself (on "public domain")
> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 08:18:44 -0600
> 
> If we're pursuing sticklerism wrt proper language use...
> 
>> On 2/22/19 6:01 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
>> Free Software means that they must share the source with their
>> modifications as well, which is a far more powerful idea.
> 
> That's still off.  You're describing copyleft or "reciprocal" licensing.
> Permissive licenses like Apache 2.0 [...]

Uh oh! We‘re talking a student‘s exercise here: drawing lines and rectangles - and a moving and animated Pacman ;)

I didn‘t exactly mean to start a philosophical debate about various software licenses. But it‘s good to see that this list is alive :)

But yes, when I find the time to make it compile again against the latest Oberon-07 language specification (and possibly changed kernel module APIs) then my intent is indeed to publish it on Github. IF I get the „okay“ from my colleague with whom I wrote the code at the time, that is.

But really, there are probably way better Oberon „example“ programs out there, let alone the kernel module sources. So don‘t expect a masterpiece; and some parts we wrote at the time are rather cringeworthy - luckily today‘s Oberon compiler is mercilessly punishing some of those things, such as public global variables (which were writeable in Oberon-2, but read-only since Oberon-07, as everyone knows here ;)).

And I‘d put it under my favourite WYDIYF license („Whatever You Do It‘s YOUR Fault“). :)

Cheers,
  Oliver

P.S. Yes, I know, „text only“ here - I hope my iOS email client gets the message out correctly (if not I stick to my proper desktop email client in the future)