[openbeos] Re: [Glasselevator-talk] Re: Glasselevator-talk digest, Vol 1 #3 - 3 msgs (themes and other apps)...

  • From: "Daniel Reinhold" <danielr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:01:12 CST

>> I have to disagre with you David. And Ithamar's missing the point 
too.
>> 
>> Deej, is right. We cannot control alternate or "rogue" version from 
>> appearing. Anyone, absolutely anyone can checkout our entire source 
>> tree at any time. They can then proceed to make changes from minor 
to 
>> major, recompile, then redistribute it as an another OS. Our license 
>> does not prohibit this.
>
>You guys are all missing the point. We have control over what we
>do. What anyone else does with our released code is a non-issue. 
Either
>they make code they want to roll in with ours or they don't. We 
control
>what goes back in, however.
>
>> All we can do is promote an "official" version and a set of 
standards 
>> for it. If we do it right, no one would want an alternate version. 
Of 
>> course, this is all hypothetical talk at the moment, because we are 
a 
>> long way away from having a source tree for a complete OS. But when 
we 
>> do -- be prepared -- rip-offs will appear as sure as the sun rises.
>
>Correct, they will be like weeds, and if they aren't major differences
>they will not gain momentum.
>
>. *  *      *   .   \|/  *      *     ,   . *   '  *  .
>.   .   *  ,     * --*--    .     `    * ,   .  *  ,  .
>David Sowsy    .    /|\  BeOS Rebel and Coder   .  *  .
>http://dsowsy.nanorevolution.com   .   *   .   *   .  .

Well, duh!

Deej wasn't arguing about people coming in and disturbing our CVS 
repository. He was talking about people checking out our code, making 
changes, recompiling, and then redistributing it under their own name/
banner. He's arguing for a set of standards and an "official" stamp 
that would distinguish our original from rip-off versions. This makes 
sense.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. haiku
  3. Archive
  4. 01-2002