[openbeos] Re: A question/concern re OSS
- From: "Marcus Overhagen" <dos4gw@xxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:38:32 +0100
Helmar Rudolph <helmar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>distros, who initiates and coordinates talks with companies
>like AMD (for SMP, etc support) or any other one we would
>like to see support the BeOS? BeUnited? And if BU does it,
Who ever on this list is the best person for that patricular
job. If someone of BeUnited has had contact with AMD
in the past, he might announce it here on the mailinglist,
and we may elect him to do it. Probably any other person.
>and passes the "right" on to OBOS, will the changes in the
>OBOS code then also be available to other distros?
Of cause. This is an open source project, after all.
We will put it into CVS. Thats why we are all here.
Well, I'm still not sure what you really intend to do.
Turning OpenBeOS into a closed BeUinted project will
certainly not work.
Once there was a really nice BeUnited project, the development
of a BeOS audio editing application. I *really* would like to have
joined that team. But it was a closed group of 5 people, and already
marked as "full". I also decided to drop my personal plans regarding
development of an audio editor exclusively for BeOS.
>Don't get me wrong here, but the one reason why I am pushing
>for a central dev. and a central marketing/certification
>"authority" is because I don't want to see work being
We don't need a certification authority.
Many of us also do not WANT any outside certification authority.
>canabalized, and I don't want any possible distro to ride on
>the volunteer effort put in by anyone, BeUnited or OpenBeOS.
That the way open source software is supposed to work.
Accept it, or drop your encouragement in OSS.
>I know the concerns of the open sauce advocates ("we don't
>want another single company to rule over BeOS again"), but
>other than Be, Inc. BeUnited is a non-profit entity, has
Well, I'm a non profit entity, too.
Please, let ME decoide what going on here.
>many members that are also OBOS members (and vice versa),
>and will clearly acknowledge when it is goofing up - for
>this our internal communication works just too well.
"internal communication"? You are a closed group,
similar to Be Inc, or the BlueOS team, as it appears.
I don't like that.
>Your take please.
Here it is. You asked, you get it.
Marcus
Other related posts:
