The Internet Archive’s latest in-browser emulator lets anyone with internet access play and use dozens of games and programs originally released for the first Apple Macintosh computers in all of their black-and-white, low-resolution glory. The only problem is, how am I going to file this story into The Atlantic’s 2017 web based content management system? (Also, the hyphen key isn’t working.) But more on that in a minute.įirst, let me get out of here and switch back to my regular text editor. So here I am, awash in 1980s computing nostalgia, clacking away in an emulated version of the original software, thanks to the Internet Archive. Now here’s a first for me: I’m writing a story for The Atlantic in MacWrite 4.5, the word processing program first released with the Apple Macintosh in 1984 and discontinued a decade later. But I still write first drafts in reporter’s notebooks, and in the Notes section of my iPhone, and on scraps of paper when necessary. Most of the time, I’m typing away in a plain text editor on my laptop. I write everywhere, with whatever technology is at hand. Not just geographically unusual, though there’s that, too.
Of course the above is assuming that an open-source software can switch to a different licence in the very middle of its development, though.I’m a reporter first, and a writer second, which means I often find myself writing in odd places.
I wonder if a software license can be changed as it progresses? Can, for example, an open-source software start limiting the usage of its source to only specific TI community users or force people to open-source their softwares, and of course still allowing anyone to update the original project? The current builds could still be forked, but newer versions with added features wouldn't, meaning that any closed-source softwares would eventually be far behind.Īnd then, if the author of the fork ever decides to add new features himself, then nspire_emu contributors can counter that by copying any new emulation/compatibility features the fork author adds?
Personally, the only real motive I could see from a project that remains closed source far into its progress is to compete head-on with the software the fork originated from.
I do not program anymore, but if I ever decided to do it again and my source was available, I would try to choose a license that limits certain rights, while still allowing the use of the source under certain conditions. Quote from: Lionel Debroux on November 20, 2012, 04:27:47 am If nspire_emu were licensed under a license that forbids closed-source derivatives, indeed, SpiroH's forks should be taken down.Īh that sucks. Him not showing signs of getting a clue about why what he's doing is harmful to the community, and not providing his reasoning for doing so, has raised exasperation.
The release of that version was delayed as a result of SpiroH's closed-source forks. That version doesn't have UI improvements, GDB support, partial Nspire CAS+ support - the sum of which represents thousands of lines of changes and reorganization in the source code. Despite gentle (and explicative, at the beginning) calls from multiple persons to lighten up, he keeps spewing closed source forks based on an outdated version of nspire_emu. However, unlike all other persons who worked on nspire_emu and/or its derivatives, SpiroH has proved otherwise. However, the license of nspire_emu (rather, the lack thereof) allows anybody to fork it, without providing the sources of the fork, without contributing modifications back to upstream, without trying to work with upstream, or anything.Ī possible reason for that state of fact (I don't know) is that Goplat assumed that people would be good citizens and would care about the community, so a license that forbids closed-source derivatives would be superfluous. If nspire_emu were licensed under a license that forbids closed-source derivatives, indeed, SpiroH's forks should be taken down.