[openbeos] Re: Haiku distro guidelines [was: Haiku VmwareBuild Environment]

On Tue, 2008-04-15 at 21:47 -0400, Karl vom Dorff wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Sean Healy <jalopeura@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>                 Good point. At least I included a license (albeit
>                 incorrectly), Haiku-Files (run by Haiku) doesn't on
>                 their website. As well for the packages... i.e:
>                 
>                 
>                 # Subversion
>                 <http://www.haiku-files.org/files/Subversion-1.1.3.pkg>
>                 # SSH
>                 <http://www.haiku-files.org/files/ssh-3.9-r5.pkg> [for
>                 BONE
>                 <http://www.haiku-files.org/files/ssh-3.9-bone.pkg>]
>                 # Dev Tools for BeOS R5
>                 <http://www.bebits.com/app/2680> (replace GCC with
>                 newer version below)
>                 # GCC compiler 2.95.3 <http://www.bebits.com/app/4011>
>                 # Jam Haiku build system tool
>                 <http://www.haiku-files.org/files/jam.zip>
>         
>         But these packages are for the system that's building Haiku.
>         They don't end up on the Haiku image unless specifically
>         requested when building. And even in that case, they are
>         downloaded separately. So it's not quite the same thing.
> 
> Fair enough, though the disk images at Haiku-files.org don't have a
> license attached with them. What about binutils, gdb included in the
> operating system? Just like in my case, You can't call the whole thing
> BSD/MIT. At best, mixed, with an explanation of the mixed licenses...

I believe you are right in that we would need to include the license
text for each of them, something that apparently we have not been doing
so far. In all honesty, I don't know why.

Maybe one of the Haiku devs can shed any light?

> Can you just put software on a website though and not mention its
> license? I mean, every single file on Haikuware or BeBits has a
> license (on the website). Even if legal, it should probably be
> displayed as a courtesy.

AFAIK, the requirement is in the distribution package itself. So if you
put a program that requires the inclusion of the license to any form of
distribution in ZIP file for people to download, then the license text
should be included in the ZIP.

>         In any case, I think Karl's doing a good thing here, and I
>         think he's shown good faith by responding to concerns
>         addressed on this list. So let's not beat him up too much.
>         
>         On the other hand, I understand Haiku, Inc's zeal in
>         protecting the image of Haiku. I think in the end we're not
>         going to be able to prevent a proliferation of distros a la
>         Linux, but at least the requirement that it say "based on
>         Haiku" and be called by some other name will help clear things
>         up somewhat.
>         
>         Perhaps Karl needs to rename his version "KarlOS - based on
>         Haiku" or something like that. Of course, if he's trying to
>         keep up with progress as it occurs, that might be a little
>         difficult.
> 
> Hehe, I'll get back to you on this... The thing is, I never liked to
> take credit for anything regarding those images, because I really
> didn't do much. That's why I wrote Haiku Inc. & Karl as the authors of
> the packages. But, I understand the situation better now. 

Great to hear Karl. I am really not trying to make you evil or anything.
I hope you understand that. In a nutshell, I am just giving a
perspective that I think many people are missing here (understandably
perhaps, as Haiku is an engineering-driven project).

All being said, in the end it is the development team that makes all
decisions related to development, including the creation of one or more
eventual Haiku distributions. So they could well say "screw Jorge and
his paranoia" and take a more liberal stance, and that would probably be
the end of the discussion.

Cheers,

Koki

Other related posts: