Source code ?

[Boozy]

Sorry if this has already been answered, but is the source code for the hack available? I DL'd the zip yesterday and the source directory was empty.

Any help would be appreciated.

[samsdb0]

it will be available soon

[Boozy]

Great. Does anyone know if there are plans to get a sourceforge project running for this?

[samsdb0]

thats the rumor

[kornfr]

Hi

the source code is available now ?


Thx

--
Salut
le code source est t il disponible maintenant ?

Merci

[Steve1496]

Hi

the source code is available now ?


Thx

--
Salut
le code source est t il disponible maintenant ?

Merci


Current goal for source code release is this weekend.

Steve

[rastaman]

Hi dear developers, all,

Did you plan to release the source code soon ? We are at the week-end now, and i really would like to read the code! thanks in advance,

PS: This will be on svn.onmac.net ?

[sud0n1m]

The goal for releasing the source code nicely commented is by the end of this weekend. The source will be available on svn.onmac.net. As an alternative to sourceforge, we have decided to run a subversion server in house.

[maconlysource]

What are the credentials for login?

[MitchellH]

What are the credentials for login?
They aren't released yet. The source code isn't actually active...yet

[rastaman]

So we are near the end of the week end. I don't want to put you under pressure but if we could see the code soon it would be great! If it use some closed sources things please post it without them, we will do the necessary to find it elsewhere! TIA and best regards,

[BartVB]

It's still going to be available 'soon'... From IRC:


[04:47] <John_K> the src isn't public yet but it will be soon
[04:48] <John_K> we're just getting the toolchain stuff in order so it's easy to compile
[04:48] <John_K> as you need a few different things currently, like Intel's EDK, VS .net 2003 and cygwin with binutils
[04:49] <John_K> also Blanka and narf are currently deciding on what license to release the source under
[04:50] <John_K> it should be soon though


IMO one of the goals of opening it is to clean it up and improve it. Looks like they first want to have something close to perfect before they open it up? IMO cleaning it up can be done as a community effort? Just decide on a license, put it in SVN and _then_ clean it up if someone else doesn't do it for you :)

[John_K]

Things aren't being cleaned up atm, we're just putting together a simple way for people to setup a build environment for it as it requires a bunch of different things (VS .net 2003 compilers, objcopy and some efi utility applications) and a license still has to be decided upon. Rest assured it will be out soon.

[Micmac2]

Any news about the source code ?

[Steve1496]

There is no need to make a new thread on this. No, there is no news and when there is it will be posted here and on the wiki. I'll merge the two topics.


Steve

[freshman]

Things aren't being cleaned up atm, we're just putting together a simple way for people to setup a build environment for it as it requires a bunch of different things (VS .net 2003 compilers, objcopy and some efi utility applications) and a license still has to be decided upon. Rest assured it will be out soon.

What discussion is necessary for a license? Isn't GPL v2/3 an obvious choice?

[chrisp]

What discussion is necessary for a license? Isn't GPL v2/3 an obvious choice?

It is one choice, but they could also opt for a BSD-style license that would ease commercial use, or for an MPL-style license with more control over the future direction of the project, or for an Artistic license that requires non-standard versions to be clearly labeled as such. You'd find good arguments for any of these licenses for this kind of project.

[raduma]

I thought it was planned for last weekend. At this point 'cleaning' the code is taking longer then writing it.

[rastaman]

hi all,

Although i'm not sure this would be the solution to have D3D support and full BIOS/CSM compatibility i would like you release the source code of xom as soon as possible, because i would like to use the portions of the code which load the 2 bios images (vga.rom and bios.rom) to load instead a 1024ko rom of for instance the efi packard bell notebook rom (which is made by insyde and should contain all what we need for the video card and via patches perhaps for the screen = please tell me if i'm wrong).

So please hear us, sure i'm not alone to want access to the code, we need it, even in GPL. thanks in advance for you attention to this request, best regards, great work to have put a bios(es) loader in xom since the beginning, you're the greatests,

[bgd]

It is one choice, but they could also opt for a BSD-style license that would ease commercial use, or for an MPL-style license with more control over the future direction of the project, or for an Artistic license that requires non-standard versions to be clearly labeled as such. You'd find good arguments for any of these licenses for this kind of project.
Why not simply release it under the strictest open source license of the aforementioned to give people immediate access to the code and then later change the license to one of the less strict ones, whichever he decides? That would put the frustrations of driver developers to an end and give the author as much time as he needs to decide on the final license, without hindering progress on the video issue etc...

[chrisp]

Why not simply release it under the strictest open source license of the aforementioned to give people immediate access to the code and then later change the license to one of the less strict ones, whichever he decides? That would put the frustrations of driver developers to an end and give the author as much time as he needs to decide on the final license, without hindering progress on the video issue etc...

Just for the record: I'm not part of the team that has to decide on the license for XOM. I was just trying to show why it's not always an easy choice to make.

Also I don't believe there is such a thing as "the strictest open source license", because licenses cannot be rated on a linear scale. There are large differences in both intent and "implementation".

Personally, I'd also rather see the code released today than tomorrow, but it's not my choice to make...

[rxcited]

Maybe Colin should have stipulated in the original contest the required release license and schedule? I guess he wanted a working solution more than he wanted the code to be released in a timely fashion. Too bad. :( If we all had a chance to define the contest all over again, we'd probably say "source code released with the solution" to get the cash. That would have put the same priority on getting the code out there as actually getting it done. Hindsight is always better! :D

P.S. I am very glad these guys came up with the solution and I don't mean to cap on them in any way. I just wish they could pass the torch already with so many uber-goobers drooling to make some progress. If they are so busy, then get it out there so the community can run with it! :)

[John_K]

All issues have been resolved and we have just released the sourcecode under a modified GPL license with added non-commercial clauses.

You can download the code via anonymous SVN from svn://svn.onmac.net/xom/trunk

And you can access the Trac Code Management System at http://svn.onmac.net/trac

[rxcited]

All issues have been resolved and we have just released the sourcecode under a modified GPL license with added non-commercial clauses.

You can download the code via anonymous SVN from svn://svn.onmac.net/xom/trunk

And you can access the Trac Code Management System at http://svn.onmac.net/trac
OK, so I am a ho-dad. Can we just access the code, or do we need to get setup with Trac? :confused:

Be aware, my interest at this point is strictly curiousity. I don't expect to be too helpful in carrying this forward at this point... :D

[rastaman]

Thanks! I just grab all the files and will compile my own xom, many many thanks to open the source, we can now explore other ways to load the csms/bios/...
Have a good day and best regards;

EDIT: Well the intall of the dev environment is straightforward but i this doesn't compile as is it seems, it miss a font.obj file :
xom.c
lib.c
addr.c
dbg.c
i386.c
krn.c
txt.c
Assembling: krn.asm
objcopy: C:\project\EFI_Toolkit_1.10.14.62\apps\xom\..\..\\ build\bios32\output\a
pps\xom\font.obj: No such file or directory
NMAKE : U1077: 'objcopy' : return code '0x1'
Stop.

(and i didn't see any font.* file in apps/xom, but i will investigate before opening a ticket.)

[chrisp]

OK, so I am a ho-dad. Can we just access the code, or do we need to get setup with Trac? :confused:

If you just want to browse the code, you can do that with the "Browse Source" button in the Trac web interface. If you want to build your own version of XOM, you can check out the complete tree via anonymous svn.

[rxcited]

If you just want to browse the code, you can do that with the "Browse Source" button in the Trac web interface. If you want to build your own version of XOM, you can check out the complete tree via anonymous svn.
Got it! Merci beaucoup. :rolleyes:

[teras]

Well the intall of the dev environment is straightforward but i this doesn't compile as is it seems, it miss a font.obj file

I experience exactly the same problem.
I am building this system without Visual Studio .NET

[shteve]

See this for a solution to the font.obj problem: http://forum.onmac.net/showthread.php?t=673

[teras]

See this for a solution to the font.obj problem: http://forum.onmac.net/showthread.php?t=673

It works! Thanks