Opinion A call for code

The views expressed in this article are purely the opinions of the author, Richard Murray, and should not be taken as truth, fact, or resembling anything whatsoever. So there.

I have often said that it is a terrible shame to let hard work coding be dropped. I won't say "go to waste" because sometimes the coding is a commercial success.
However, when a person or company stops developing for the RISC OS platform for whatever reasons they may have, they often take with them the code. A notable exception here is Webite (DoggySoft), which is a basic HTML 2.0 web browser written entirely in assembler (oh wow!) and sources are available from their website.
But consider another example. Computer Concepts.
I, personally, did not click with Impression's way of working, but I have seen the system in use, and would never claim that it didn't have style and power. The same goes for ArtWorks. But now Computer Concepts have gone on with bigger better things (like Xara) and do not actively develop for RISC OS any more. A number of people still use their software, and I really do think it is a shame to just say "okay, let's call it a day" and stop. Really stop.
What I would like to see, and what I will put to various companies/individuals if I can track them down, is to have the source code publically released.
After all, if it is now a piece of Acorn history, what does the person concerned have to lose?

• That others might laugh at their code?
  If that was a valid excuse, nobody would ever release code.
   
  
• That others might change the copyright and try selling the program?
  Well, yes, that is always a possibility. But I rather think that the size of the RISC OS market, and the fact that the RISC OS magazine editors do remember, I think it would be highly unlikely that anybody would get far by renaming Impression to, say, PagePro, and flogging it.
   
  
• That users will be downloading untested code?
  That is always something to be wary of. When I was discussing the viability of making the Voyager code open source, I said that the open source version should not be heavily publicised to newbie users. If a person understands the whole concept, then using untested code won't bother them. But for 'normal' users, it can cause unwanted headaches.
  But, should that mean that code should not be made open source just because it might upset somebodies system if they install a bunch of untested things? That logic is akin to "some kid might shoot his classmates, so we won't broadcast any Quentin Tarantino movie...ever...". It just doesn't deal with the real issue.
   
  
• How about code management?
  Well, I do not wish to take on the role of code manager, primarily due to the time I spend abroad in the Summer, with no internet connection.
  However, the code does need to be managed, so that one release is available, and modifications are incorporated into the main code release; rather than loads of different versions all over the web.
  But please, don't think I'm trying to duck out. If nobody else is willing to take on the job of code manager, then I will do it. It'll just mean that it is possible that little happens during the summer.
   
  
• What about royalities? Or payment for the time we spend updating the code?
  I'm afraid if you are asking those sorts of questions, then you have missed the driving force here...
   
  
• So this means we'll get once-commercial software as a freebie?
  Well, yes and no.
  Essentially, yes. Although you will most likely need to recompile it yourself. However the point here is not so much freebie software, but in keeping something alive. There will be people we don't code who will benefit, no doubt, but is that such a bad thing?
   
  
• But the original author loses!
  How? The original programmer(s) no longer develop and support the code. Only under very exceptional circumstances would I even dream about asking for a currently developed project to be made open source. As for the rest, I will be trying to get old source code released. It is something that, as far as the programmer is concerned, is out of the picture.
  So they don't really have anything to lose.
  But, conversely, they do stand to gain a little. They stand to gain a good reputation from the geeks for actually releasing the code; and they stand to gain from the end-users who benefit from patches and modifications, whether necessary to make the code work on a newer system or simply wish-list requests.

Surely, you'll agree that this can only be a Good Thing for practically everybody concerned?

I will be looking through back-issues of various RISC OS magazines, and looking to see what good software we had, but is unfortunately no longer in active development. And, if I can track down those concerned, I will put this question to them. I am hoping to secure the releasal of some good source code, so that we may pool together and get some good applications back into development. But all this depends upon many factors. So, at this moment in time, all I can do is hope - and try to write something really convincing.

Please please email me with your comments. I really would love to know if you feel as strongly about this issue as I do, or if you have different ideas. Or maybe you once developed for RISC OS? Would you be willing to release your source?

Email opensource@heyrick.co.uk