Hi Erich, > If > licensing is a thing, there is only one way out: start with a > system featuring a license of your liking.
Yes I have thought about this as well, but the last thing the world needs is another forth, my main focus needs to be on GLANN® adding beneficial features and demonstrating it (4096+ possible functioning nodes on a single low power network). My preference is to work with what is there, time is an important consideration (not reinventing). Yes, I already have (my company licensing) for a system that already works across a network (for a number of years now 24x7 without significant issues). It started out years ago on PIC16F1824s and now includes CH32x033s. I even had a PIC version of forth (it never got integrated). What was still needed was easy programmability across a network, and forth seemed to provide this capability. However I did think about adding an abstract layer for forth much like what was done for the assembler layer. Now you know where my priorities are, Regards, John S On Sat, Feb 7, 2026 at 10:29 AM John Sarabacha <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > Here is where it gets interesting, to use the GLANN extensions for AmForth > the assembly abstraction layer is > needed (riscv_pal.h) which is not licensed GPLv3 but MIT. My understanding > is, there is no mixing of these licenses > so is it helping the developer community? The paradox here is that they > are both open source licenses, > GPLv3 being the more restrictive and MIT being more permissive. > > Regards to all, > John S > > > On Sat, Feb 7, 2026 at 9:51 AM John Sarabacha <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Erich, >> Thank you for getting back to me on this. >> Yes I do agree with you on this. >> > working out, that ANY program written to run on a Forth system, >> > extents that very system (you cannot distinguish between words >> > from Forth or your words in compiled form), no matter what. If >> >> It tends to get a little more complicated when it becomes embedded in or >> used on other >> systems. How do you use forth on linux or Windows without violating GPLv3 >> ? >> There is a dividing line here somewhere, I wish this could be a night or >> day issue (clear cut), MIT licensing >> seems to do that. >> I can keep AmForth on a separate processor (under GPLv3) and integrate a >> minimal forth (under MIT) which >> I already have and still proceed with my work. Useful findings will be >> passed back to the AmForth community. >> >> Thanks again for getting back to me on this issue, >> John S >> PS: In the beginning the Word was. >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 7, 2026 at 4:54 AM Erich Wälde <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hello John, >>> >>> I would ask you to discuss this in the open on the mailing list, >>> please. >>> >>> >>> That being said, we had licensing discussions when GPLv2 was >>> replaced by GPLv3. At the time some effort was put into clearly >>> working out, that ANY program written to run on a Forth system, >>> extents that very system (you cannot distinguish between words >>> from Forth or your words in compiled form), no matter what. If >>> licensing is a thing, there is only one way out: start with a >>> system featuring a license of your liking. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Erich >>> >>> John Sarabacha <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>> > Hi Erich, >>> > I wanted to pass this by you first, my version (split/fork) >>> > changed significantly from the original work, which is authored by me, >>> to change >>> > the licensing of these changes from GPLv3 to MIT. Matthias (asleep in >>> death in >>> > my belief system) being the original author is no longer available to >>> decide. >>> > >>> >> Now, I'm not anywhere near to decide, what happens to AmForth, >>> >>because Matthias has left this planet. And who does the work is >>> >>going to decide. Whether or not building AmForth on C or C >>> >>macros, or pure gnu assembly for riscv, or whether to switch to >>> >>a direct threaded code model, or a native code model, or whether >>> >>squeezing out every clock cycle possible --- these are all >>> >>questions, that I cannot answer. I would encourage a split/fork >>> >>and call the thing AmForth-riscv and NOT look left or right to >>> >>other targets. But that is just my humble opinion. >>> > >>> > Hope to hear from you, >>> > John S >>> >>> -- >>> May the Forth be with you ... >>> >> _______________________________________________ Amforth-devel mailing list for http://amforth.sf.net/ [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel
