General Category > Building LOS From Source
I've successfully built LOS from source!
andrew:
Regarding licensing issues... I am definitely not a lawyer, but just looking at those terms:
--- Quote ---
* redistribute, publish, sublicense, sell, rent or transfer the Apple Software;
* publish benchmarking results about the Apple Software or your use of it;
* use the name, trademarks, service marks or logos of Apple to endorse or promote your modifications or other materials derived from the Apple Software.
--- End quote ---
Obviously, you can't distribute the source itself, but as blusnowkitty mentioned previously, you could publish diff patches of some sort the way ROM hackers do. However, the last two terms seem designed to prevent any human collaboration which could actually be used to further development of the LOS software, let alone optimizing the current version of it.
The term regarding benchmarking results seems like it could be used to broadly prohibit publishing information about how modifications have improved the software, which could cover just about any kind of documentation, release notes, etc.
Apple also doesn't want you using any of their trademarks/logos, etc. to promote the software modifications. That seems like it would prevent someone from even saying a LOS software patch is actually intended to be used for the Lisa in the first place, Lisa being a trademarked term.
It seems like, effectively, people cannot directly refer to the system a LOS patch is for, nor can people explain how an LOS patch improves the software. What are we even left with after that?
sigma7:
--- Quote from: andrew on June 27, 2025, 08:25:26 pm ---However, the last two terms seem designed to prevent any human collaboration
--- End quote ---
Interesting take...
If that was indeed the intent, I would expect them to oppose publishing any modifications, which isn't specifically prohibited even though modifications are mentioned as being allowed/expected.
My interpretation of the last phrase is to prevent misrepresenting eg. a modification as coming from Apple, and/or Apple being responsible for it; this topic of not mis-representing your own work as coming from the licensor is common in developer agreements.
I suppose the term "benchmark" may be ambiguous. Although one might lose in court, I think the public would consider publishing a bug fix or new feature, which permits "x" to function in some way that is functionally different from the standard, isn't the same as a benchmark result, which would typically be regarding some kind of 'performance' as a metric. I think this would be worded differently if they meant that one should not discuss the effect of a modification in general.
My impression from the wording is that they don't want 'embarrassing' comparisons of how the code could have been improved in speed or size. I can imagine this coming up in the boardroom where they are discussing the pros and cons of releasing old source code. Is finding an easy fix to a bug the same thing? Maybe, maybe not.
So my current thinking is that I would not be reluctant to publish details of a modification to fix a bug or add a feature, assuming it is done without re-publishing the source code.
Obviously we ought to sort out this issue as best we can, so further thoughts, opinions, and discussion would be helpful.
Ancillary thought: AFAIK, Lisa and the Lisa Logo are not actually trademarks. In general, they aren't accompanied by the informal trademark symbol "TM" or the registered trademark symbol "circle-R", although perhaps they are in some isolated literature.
andrew:
--- Quote from: sigma7 on June 27, 2025, 09:11:46 pm ---
--- Quote from: andrew on June 27, 2025, 08:25:26 pm ---However, the last two terms seem designed to prevent any human collaboration
--- End quote ---
I suppose the term "benchmark" may be ambiguous. Although one might lose in court, I think the public would consider publishing a bug fix or new feature, which permits "x" to function in some way that is functionally different from the standard, isn't the same as a benchmark result, which would typically be regarding some kind of 'performance' as a metric. I think this would be worded differently if they meant that one should not discuss the effect of a modification in general.
--- End quote ---
The term benchmark is what worried me the most - it stuck out to me as an odd thing to be against. A modified version of LOS has the obvious advantage of 40 years of hindsight, to say nothing of the kinds of pressures and deadlines the original developers were faced with. At least in my opinion, it seems like there are a lot of understandable reasons why there's room for optimization. I'm also reminded of Kaze Emanuar's optimizations of Super Mario 64; using the source code, he's made many substantial performance improvements to that game, and I don't think anyone would look at those and have a poorer opinion of the original SM64. Also, that source code was leaked!
Given the more general definition (from my Mac's dictionary, of all things) of the word "benchmark":
--- Quote ---a standard or point of reference against which things may be compared or assessed
--- End quote ---
That to me seems like a way for Apple to prohibit the release of modifications without directly saying so. Perhaps they are less worried about benchmark comparisons and more worried about their own corporate image; perhaps releasing it with an explicit declaration against modification might make them appear user-hostile or re-enforce the perception of Apple as a large conglomerate. Typing that now, it sounds as equally dubious to me as a concern about benchmarking 40 year old software, but I'm sure anyone who's been following Apple's current legal escapades is aware of their tendency to frame themselves as much smaller than their competitors. Certainly now more than ever, they are desperate to avoid the external appearance of being overly controlling - this wasn't as big of a deal a couple years ago of course.
I guess the exact reasoning can only be speculated on without more direct insight.
Naturally, I don't like the thought of any of this; I'd love to see open development of Apple's old OSs as much as anyone else here.
sigma7:
--- Quote from: andrew on June 27, 2025, 09:58:22 pm ---The term benchmark is what worried me the most...
Given the more general definition (from my Mac's dictionary, of all things) of the word "benchmark":
--- Quote ---a standard or point of reference against which things may be compared or assessed
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
The interpretation "bug fixed" vs the point of reference of "bug not fixed" as being a "benchmark result" seems valid enough in the literal sense.
--- Quote ---That to me seems like a way for Apple to prohibit the release of modifications without directly saying so.
--- End quote ---
Perhaps it is intentionally vague, not so that they can catch someone out, but rather they have the option of suppressing something bad that arises which they hadn't anticipated.
Back to the actual phrase
--- Quote ---"publish benchmarking results... "
--- End quote ---
I think publish involves making it publicly available, so it may be sufficient to put bug fixes, new features, and other items potentially covered by the broadest interpretation of "benchmark results" in a restricted/private area; requiring some kind of agreement/test for admission to establish that it is clearly not public.
Presumably there is a recognized way of ensuring that something accessed via the internet is not considered public... someone know offhand?
jamesdenton:
--- Quote from: AlexTheCat123 on June 23, 2025, 02:02:41 pm ---Okay, the video just went up!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0btMjXEXgc
As I think I mentioned earlier, I won't be back home until late this week, so give me a bit of time to actually get the build scripts and necessary code modifications prepared and uploaded. But I hope to have them ready by mid to late next week!
--- End quote ---
Just finished this video and continue to be super impressed with your efforts and success. You guys should be super proud of what you managed to do here. Looking forward to what's to come!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version