[haiku] Re: Rethinking the Haiku Distro Guidelines

  • From: Joel Davis <jgd2014@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: haiku@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:12:43 -0700

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Ryan Leavengood <leavengood@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> First, a disclaimer: this is my personal opinion, let anyone confuse
> it with my involvement with Haiku, Inc, which among other things is
> supposed to protect the Haiku trademark. Also this is a bit long, so
> please bear with me. Now on with the show:
> After the recent discussions about Basho [1] I have really started
> thinking about Haiku and the idea of "distributions." This term is
> borrowed from the Linux world, which I think was the first mistake.
> Haiku is not Linux of course. Haiku is a complete system. Linux is a
> kernel. For Linux to be usable as a desktop system it needs lots of
> things included with it. Hence Linux distributions. Haiku is already a
> distribution, if you really want to use that term (which I don't.) I'd
> rather use the term release when speaking of packaging Haiku up for
> use by the outside world.
> For a long time Haiku did not have a release. So if other people
> "released" something based on Haiku it was sort of against the will of
> the developers, because if we had wanted Haiku released we would have
> done it ourselves. We didn't want people getting a bad impression of
> Haiku because someone else packaged up unfinished code as a release. I
> think it was that fear that produced these guidelines:
> http://www.haiku-os.org/community/guidelines_creating_haiku_distribution
> I recently added the box at the top, but otherwise the above isn't
> much different than the original distro guidelines.
> Now that we've had an alpha release I think these guidelines need to
> be revised. Mainly because if someone just takes our official alpha
> release and tweaks it some to fill some need (such as making things
> easier for Japanese users, like Basho), I don't think that is a
> "distribution." It isn't even another release, as long as it is based
> on our OFFICIAL Haiku release.
> Now we could name this concept: it could be a Haiku Configuration. A
> Haiku Remix. A Haiku Tweak. A Haiku Verse. Whatever. Basically it is
> just a slightly customized version of Haiku, not entirely different
> than what we all create when we install Haiku and then add our
> favorite programs, change some settings, and put some new wallpaper on
> the desktop. It was just packaged up.
> Since packaging up something like this and releasing it is somewhat of
> a pain, I don't think a bunch of people will do it. It is mainly done
> to serve a need that Haiku itself doesn't quite serve by default.
> Over the long term we should strive to solve whatever problem these
> "Remixes" are addressing in Haiku itself. But for the short term we
> don't need to make people jump through hoops to change logos and all
> that if they are simply tweaking a Haiku release. It should still be
> named differently and can't be called an official release, but that
> should be all that is needed.
> Now with that said, I still think the release of Haiku development
> code by third parties should be HIGHLY discouraged. Just like before
> the alpha release, we don't want people getting a bad impression of
> Haiku because someone packaged up code that is being worked on. Since
> this is open source we can't really prevent this, but we can prevent
> such releases from being called Haiku and from using our logos and
> trademarks. Now that we do have a release I would hope that there is
> less of a desire by third parties to release Haiku development code.
> If people want to try the cutting edge of Haiku they can download our
> nightly builds or build it themselves.
> On the subject of trademarks, I think the recent discussions about
> clarifying and expanding Haiku's trademark policies is definitely
> something we should work on. But that is a subject for another email.
> So to conclude, I think the distro guidelines should be changed to
> generally the following:
> 1. Releasing Haiku is primarily the responsibility of the project. We
> do not want a proliferation of slightly different Haiku releases.
> 2. We do not want third parties releasing Haiku development code. If
> someone does this, it must strip away all relevant trademarks, logos,
> etc that would identify it as Haiku and it must clearly indicate it is
> based on unreleased code. Any other uses of Haiku code must follow
> these same rules.
> 3. If someone tweaks an existing release of Haiku, they can distribute
> that under another name as a Haiku Remix (or whatever we want to call
> these.) The system itself can still use Haiku logos and trademarks,
> but it must be clearly labeled as a Remix at the download site. There
> should also be an alert message at first run indicating it is a Remix
> based on a particular Haiku release, and why it was created. People
> who create Remixes should be willing to work with the project or
> provide suggestions on how we can improve Haiku so that the Remix is
> not needed in the future.
> Thoughts?
> Footnotes:
> 1.
> //www.freelists.org/post/haiku/Japanese-Haiku-distribution-Basho-R1Alpha-1-released
> --
> Regards,
> Ryan

Joel Glenn Davis
1626 N Wilcox Ave # 504
Los Angeles, CA 90028 USA

I don't want a Haiku Re-Mix. I downloaded your alpha because I got turned
onto BeOS
years ago and have been following your great work. As an end-user I want a
clean and
nimble OS. Not some big fat overbloated OS that does everything for everyone
on the
entire planet.

It feels like a full circle for me. I still have my copy of the BeOS Bible
and read it regularly
not to ever forget. I'll wait patiently for the Haiku Developers to continue
their great work.

Personally I could care less about anything MS Developes or Releases. I
eagerly await
the day when Haiku is production ready.

Till then keep up the great work and happy coding :)


Other related posts: