On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Jorge G. Mare <koki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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). I understand fully, and appreciate your input. Your stance is the correct one. Nothing more needs to be said, lets close this off! It was a nice Tuesday night discussion! > > > 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 > > > > -- Karl vom Dorff B.Sc (Hons) Biology, (German minor) http://www.karlvd.com http://www.clubloreley.org http://www.haikuware.com