On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Andreas Färber <andreas.faerber@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Am 15.04.2008 um 23:45 schrieb Ryan Leavengood: > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Andreas Färber <andreas.faerber@xxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > What's your point of this mailing list post? Remember, it's being sent > > > to > > > lots of people. > > > > > > > So is your email, which I find kind of rude and I expect Karl will too. > > > > You were informed that you are in violation of the guidelines and that > > > you > > > need to make changes to comply with them if you want to continue to > > > distribute your Haiku images. > > > > > > It's your responsability to comply with such licensing terms. > > > > > > You could be happy if someone wants to help you simplify the changes > > > you'd > > > need to make, but in no way can you take that as an argument for > > > deliberately violating the rules now that you know! > > > > > > > Karl is trying to do the right thing, but he is getting conflicting > > views from we Haiku developers. Unfortunately we are individual people > > and do not always agree on everything. > > > > I find it a bit disappointing that people are being so harsh about > > this since Karl is just trying to facilitate people more easily > > developing on Haiku. It is not like he is burning CDs and handing them > > out or trying to sell them. Also I expect the people that visit > > Haikuware.com are not much different than those visiting haiku-os.org, > > so it is not like many people will download the image without knowing > > what it is. > > > > But this is just my opinion. > > > > My opinion is that this discussion which has been going on the last weeks > is really tiring. For someone quite new to Haiku like me, it gives the > impression that a War of the Websites has broken out, and that is certainly > not good publicity for Haiku. > > The distro guidelines apply to everyone, so there's little point in > arguing about their applicability. Those are not individual views, and > nothing really contradicting regarding their applicability has lately been > stated by the developers. > > On the other hand, arguing about how to technically comply with the > guidelines on this list is totally fine, no doubt. > > > Again in my opinion, it seems strange that someone saying he is not a > developer tries to provide developers with a development download. As a > developer desperately trying to get started with development on Haiku, I > compare said 125 MB to the few KB or MB an incremental svn up takes in > practice and consider that they're in VMware format only. > But the real contradicting views here seem to be on whether or not to > distribute a development image at this stage at all. In short that's the > whole Alpha discussion. The Haiku developers have decided against that for > now. As I understand it, the "Development" Optional Package is a large step > towards that goal, and rather than just settling for and spreading this > work-in-progress, some help with reviewing and improving that software would > be good, to have the official Alpha finished sooner. For example, it > recently turned out that the Perl port is not complete yet. And there is no > Subversion optional package yet, which is even directly necessary for > self-hosting Haiku. It's not that there's nothing left to do. Haiku posts a subversion package at haiku-files.org, it was on the developer image I made, and I checked out the entire source with it in Haiku. Although it's not in the optional packages script, the version posted does work. > > > I don't intend to be rude with this or the other post, just > results-oriented. And I assume we all want Haiku to evolve nice and quickly, > whatever views we might have on "the right thing" to do. Karl knows btw that > I like his site in general. > > Andreas > -- Karl vom Dorff B.Sc (Hons) Biology, (German minor) http://www.karlvd.com http://www.clubloreley.org http://www.haikuware.com