>1 - MDR started *WAY* before OpenBeOS. In fact Dr. Zoidberg's original >objective was to start replacing every possible BeOS component. Oh Yeah, I have been using it for ages. >2 - MDR uses the MIT/BSD license so the licensing thing you mention is >simply not going to happen. There isn't an issue then. >3 - Even if it was not, I am saying that all our code can be used by >OpenBeOS. If you don't think my word is not enough, then see point 2 >above. Anyway, my word should be enough. I wasn't questioning *your* word, or infact anyone else from Dr. Z. Dr. Z and its team have done *loads* of work on MDR and later OBOS, and I commend all you guys. >4 - No one is forcing MDR to be inbcluded with OpenBeOS. We offered it >to help in a more direct way. The option to this is easy, not to >include it. I really don't care either way. > >Yeah, I am probably being a bit harsh here, but stuff like this one >really gets me in a bad mood. I don't have a problem with MDR, it was made to replace the standard one, but what happens if we start to include other code from other companies too, and their plans don't quite match OBOS's. Something like MDR won't affect the whole OBOS project. What about some company that offers networking to us, and then takes it away? How about Travis decides that he wants to implement something in NewOS kernel that makes it almost impossible to use for OBOS. What about a browser that is offered to us, and then becomes a commercial product. All I am saying is perhaps there should be tight rules as to what allowing a product to be shipped with OBOS. I didn't mean to annoy anyone here, but its just an issue I have with the projects fragmentation. While I am happy now, I would be totally happy if it were all under one roof, and OpenBeOS code and software belonged to OpenBeOS. Thanks Andrew Edward McCall mccall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- OpenBeOS! - Join the revolution now! http://www.openbeos.org/