deskthority

And yet his software is forever stuck in limbo precisely because he didn't include a simple open source licence text.

He was, according to his profile, last active on GH end of August 2014. He stopped posting middle of march.

Muirium wrote: 30 May 2021, 10:55 And yet his software is forever stuck in limbo precisely because he didn't include a simple open source licence text.

He clearly choose to not open the source of his converter at that point in time. That was not an accident but a choice he made.

That he failed to include licenses for the stuff he did "open" (or even the binaries) is a separate point.

Muirium wrote: 30 May 2021, 10:39 So the “brain rot” is what, precisely? That software should have a license?

Without getting personal (which would be an absolute font of reasons to shun him) try: https://invisible-island.net/ncurses/nc ... cense.html

These are not the actions of someone who should be in a position of authority over software licensing.

Muirium wrote: 30 May 2021, 10:55 And yet his software is forever stuck in limbo precisely because he didn't include a simple open source licence text.

Legal ambiguity is only one of the issues blocking further development.

• It's feature complete (except for some obscure protocol support, what is actually missing?)
• It hasn't been actively maintained in 7+ years
• It was from it's inception the work of a single individual, not a team, so documentation doesn't exist
• The source code is not available so any development will be working from reverse engineered code
• The source code for Soarer's tools is available, but this isn't... this blob likely contains bits of unlicensed code

Even if the converter's legal status is clarified, why would an aspiring developer work on Soarer's code and not a different project that is actively maintained?

I'm not a developer so I can only imagine, but the path of least resistance (and most efficient use of one's time) would be to contribute to projects which are still in development. And bringing this before a judge seems more likely to accomplish nothing or even backfire than create the conditions required for a new version of Soarer's to be released.

tl;dr has anyone showed genuine interest in maintaining Soarer's converter only to lose interest because of legal ambiguity? The risks associated with legal action seem greater than the risks associated with unsanctioned development.

Yeah, you make a good point. (Note to others: with reason.) Without an active maintainer all this does feel in danger of being in vain.

I'd certainly like a fresh project taking on Soarer's software model: a multi-protocol binary ready for users to load, which is then configured at will by the host system. It's so much less faffing around than building from source, or building from Pandrew's server or the like. This is a project for lightweight tasks, not building from the ground up.

An active project would also be able to ship multiple binaries for distinct architectures: ARM included. Soarer's is essentially feature complete, but because it's dead it's doomed.

lis0r wrote: 30 May 2021, 11:10

Muirium wrote: 30 May 2021, 10:39 So the “brain rot” is what, precisely? That software should have a license?

Without getting personal (which would be an absolute font of reasons to shun him) try: https://invisible-island.net/ncurses/nc ... cense.html

These are not the actions of someone who should be in a position of authority over software licensing.

That is a rich history! It's also so old—1997—I was still at school and had literally not even heard of "open source software" yet.

Having a wee look—don't have all morning for the read—I see RMS being quite diplomatic and level headed, and, oh yes, a negligent original developer who talks about treating his work as "found code" and bon appétit! So far so triggering!

Me: I'd like discussions on the Internet be like the Banquets of the Black Widowers.

Meanwhile...


esr starting a new topic on DT


DT engaging esr

And then DT engaging DT.


Would be nice if we had a ref, actually. He could wear pink and make friends on all sides!

I took a look at that page on ncurses’ licensing. And…

Okay, I hate this legal stuff. What an absolute nightmare and an exercise in frustration. Screw coding; I’m gonna go play my guitar now.

I just don’t see how it’s at all productive to mire creators of art and/or technical stuff in all of this complexity. Does a kid really have to learn all the legal implications of writing a simple Bash script and sharing it with their friend? It’s preposterous, in my opinion.

Ignorance of the law will get your ass busted.

If you want to change it: write to your congressman. And best of luck.

I know. And so be it. That’s why risk assessment is a thing. If risk had to always be determined to be 0% before taking any action, then nothing would ever get done.

I still think it’s stupid. I still can’t understand how anyone in their right mind would expect even the most casual hobbyist to follow such stringent rules exactly to the letter. It’s an entirely unnecessary hindrance to the creative process.

If it weren’t for breaking rules, we wouldn’t have this:

On December 14, 1989, Di Modica arrived on Wall Street with Charging Bull on the back of a truck and illegally dropped the sculpture outside of the New York Stock Exchange Building. After being removed by the New York City Police Department later that day, Charging Bull was installed at Bowling Green a week later. Despite initially having only a temporary permit to be located at Bowling Green, Charging Bull became a popular tourist attraction.

lis0r wrote: 30 May 2021, 08:26

esr wrote: 29 May 2021, 23:21 You misunderstand. It's completely OK with me that you don't know who you're talking to.

We know exactly who you are. We can read about your shining exploits on rationalwiki and the ncurses website. We just think you're a wasteman.

Speak for yourself, silly.

Muirium wrote: 30 May 2021, 10:04 …
For all this telling esr he should see things from your point of view (“your” is plural here), also try looking at it in reverse. What this thread also reads like is a bunch of squealing ****s trying to man up by screeching and jumping. That’s why it’s such a shitshow.

I don't think several of the little shiRts in this thread are going to be decent enough, or grown-up enough, to acknowledge that esr was asked to come and see to this issue, given his previous experience with similar situations.

Slom wrote: 30 May 2021, 11:00

Muirium wrote: 30 May 2021, 10:55 And yet his software is forever stuck in limbo precisely because he didn't include a simple open source licence text.

He clearly choose to not open the source of his converter at that point in time. That was not an accident but a choice he made.

This point has been already discussed and settled. Insist on it won't get you anywhere.

Rayndalf wrote: 30 May 2021, 11:22

Muirium wrote: 30 May 2021, 10:55 And yet his software is forever stuck in limbo precisely because he didn't include a simple open source licence text.

Legal ambiguity is only one of the issues blocking further development.

• It's feature complete (except for some obscure protocol support, what is actually missing?)
• It hasn't been actively maintained in 7+ years
• It was from it's inception the work of a single individual, not a team, so documentation doesn't exist
• The source code is not available so any development will be working from reverse engineered code
• The source code for Soarer's tools is available, but this isn't... this blob likely contains bits of unlicensed code

Even if the converter's legal status is clarified, why would an aspiring developer work on Soarer's code and not a different project that is actively maintained?

I'm not a developer so I can only imagine, but the path of least resistance (and most efficient use of one's time) would be to contribute to projects which are still in development. And bringing this before a judge seems more likely to accomplish nothing or even backfire than create the conditions required for a new version of Soarer's to be released.

tl;dr has anyone showed genuine interest in maintaining Soarer's converter only to lose interest because of legal ambiguity? The risks associated with legal action seem greater than the risks associated with unsanctioned development.

ALL your points are good. If nothing else, at least the effort of clearing the lingering doubts should be made, to at least know whether the best path is to revive Soarer's or to make a clone from scratch.

We should remember that while TMK/QMK are great, the approach in Soarer's Converter is different, and that difference is strong enough to make it a better alternative than the former in some scenarios. Why discard a good tool for no good reason?

vincent wrote: 30 May 2021, 14:15 …
I still think it’s stupid. I still can’t understand how anyone in their right mind would expect even the most casual hobbyist to follow such stringent rules exactly to the letter. It’s an entirely unnecessary hindrance to the creative process.

Well, there IS a lower-side limit to what deserves copyright, and it ain't even close to a fuzzy line. But, as I mentioned elsewhere, when money starts changing hands, the legal aspect of software development needs to be clarified.

It does not need to have the source code to be "forcefully opened", by the way. It could be perfectly well that the compiled binaries are released for public usage, while the source is kept closed but under the control of an active developer (WITH a succession plan, mind you).

Now, if someone came complaining about ownership of .sc files... that would be another matter (and would be well below the limit described above).

esr wrote: 30 May 2021, 03:53 I don't know how old you are. If this doesn't make sense to you now, maybe it will in ten years. Or twenty.

Old enough to call you on being a condescending sack of shit.

lis0r wrote: 30 May 2021, 11:10 These are not the actions of someone who should be in a position of authority over software licensing.

OK, how would you expect someone to react when someone else comes in and tries to hijack your project?

Rayndalf wrote: 30 May 2021, 11:22 Even if the converter's legal status is clarified, why would an aspiring developer work on Soarer's code and not a different project that is actively maintained?

A lack of desire to reinvent wheels?

vincent wrote: 30 May 2021, 12:33 I just don’t see how it’s at all productive to mire creators of art and/or technical stuff in all of this complexity. Does a kid really have to learn all the legal implications of writing a simple Bash script and sharing it with their friend? It’s preposterous, in my opinion.

Agreed...but, sadly, it's the reality of the world we live in.

an_achronism wrote: 30 May 2021, 15:25

esr wrote: 30 May 2021, 03:53 I don't know how old you are. If this doesn't make sense to you now, maybe it will in ten years. Or twenty.

Old enough to call you on being a condescending sack of shit.

I think this thread is full of young condescending sacks of shit, too.

Boys! Keep up the ad hominem, and I'm calling in your moms!

Muirium wrote: 30 May 2021, 15:32 Boys! Keep up the ad hominem, and I'm calling in your moms!

If someone thinks it's acceptable to make a string of incorrect and otherwise incredibly insulting assumptions about my age and life experience while insulting my intelligence, then I do not believe they deserve anything more sophisticated than "monkey brain" ad hominems in return, I'm afraid.

Then keep it to yourself. You see the wild mood swings this thread has. Every once in a while we settle down, use our heads, and talk about the issues. Then: BAM! The emotions are storming the barricades again, like Staypuft Marshmallow Man sized bratty toddlers!



I'd rather we called time out on that second part.

Muirium wrote: 30 May 2021, 15:43 Then keep it to yourself.

No. If I see somebody trying to reduce valid criticism to the mechanisms of a crazed mating instinct power dynamic obsessed mind, I am more than justified in responding to that horseshit to call it out for what it is.

Muirium wrote: 30 May 2021, 11:29 Having a wee look—don't have all morning for the read—I see RMS being quite diplomatic and level headed, and, oh yes, a negligent original developer who talks about treating his work as "found code" and bon appétit! So far so triggering!

I'm guessing you skipped over the part where ESR demonstrated his penchant to remove attribution from other developers, and deny attribution to new ones? A flagrant power grab.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond is also worth a read.

lis0r wrote: 30 May 2021, 16:12 https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond is also worth a read.

Uh, no. Rational Wiki was tediously wrong even before it got terminally woke. Hint; there's more to rationalism than simply slamming creationists.

First someone was wrong on the internet. And now even Wikis aren't unimpeachably true? Christ on a shoogly stick…

Muirium wrote: 30 May 2021, 16:32 First someone was wrong on the internet. And now even Wikis aren't unimpeachably true? Christ on a shoogly stick…

I mean most of the claims in that wiki have references, often to esr's own blog.

Well, when they start out with "I am not a hard-right conservative but an anarchist who just happens to agree exactly with hard-right conservatives", they fail - and the rest of the article is full of the same fail.

I am what most folks would think of as a hard-right conservative, though I don't consider myself that far right - and I lean libertarian in a lot of ways. Even so, Eric and I disagree pretty strongly about lots of things, and no conservative I know would call him one. By saying that, they merely reveal their own hard-left bias.

jmaynard wrote: 30 May 2021, 17:03 Well, when they start out with "I am not a hard-right conservative but an anarchist who just happens to agree exactly with hard-right conservatives", they fail - and the rest of the article is full of the same fail.

I am what most folks would think of as a hard-right conservative, though I don't consider myself that far right - and I lean libertarian in a lot of ways. Even so, Eric and I disagree pretty strongly about lots of things, and no conservative I know would call him one. By saying that, they merely reveal their own hard-left bias.

Jay, it ain't worth arguing with people who use RationalWiki (or Conservapedia, for that matter) as a source.

There is only one good wiki.

ifohancroft wrote: 29 May 2021, 18:47

esr wrote: 29 May 2021, 16:16 Urk. I don't actually know this is true. I assumed it based on what Antonizoon said. If he's not a reliable reporter we have a problem.

Not an insuperable one, though. Code decompilation is an actual thing, we'd just need someone to do it more carefully.

Perhaps it is true.

We don't know (at least I, currently don't know on top of my head) if he made any further improvements to the code. Also, despite my changes allowing the code to compile without errors (and IIRC without warnings), I don't know if they are correct.

Also, the code may produce a binary that's functionally the same, so I don't know if it's reasonable for me to expect the two binaries to be exactly the same byte for byte when compiled.

I can't test if they work the same, because as much as I am ashamed to admit it, I don't actually have any old/retro boards. There are many such boards that I want but I couldn't afford buying them so far.

I agree with you on the fact that the code might not be 100% the code that Soarer wrote. I think that Arakula added some comments here and there and made some adjustments so that the code could be built after the decompilation.

I had some errors too while trying to compile the code on macOS. I believe that I'm using a more recent version of GCC than the one that Arakula used at the time he was making this work. But I was able to successfully compile the code and test the resulting firmware on a spare Teensy 2.0 (not attached to a keyboard yet). I was able to upload a configuration file and then download it from the converter without any issues.
The next step would be to test it on an already Soarer-converted keyboard. For that I would need to go to my storage unit and grab one of my test keyboards.

The firmware size being not the same as the ones published by Soarer on DT and GH is quite expected as it can be the result of the following things:
- The code may have been altered during the decompilation process
- Different versions of the build tools than the ones used by Soarer when he built the firmware
- Different libraries versions than the ones used by Soarer when he built the firmware

PS: Some of you might object this, but let me know if I can share the hex files here for others to test the firmware too