<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/20/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">Chris Gianelloni</b> <<a href="mailto:wolf31o2@g.o">wolf31o2@g.o</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 16:16 -0400, Michael Crute wrote:<br>> On 10/20/05, Mike Rosset <<a href="mailto:schizoid29@...">schizoid29@...</a>> wrote:<br>> I've all ready asked for those and got shot down appartently
<br>> Chris wont release them. Also Chris will try to bump this to<br>> another list releng, more then likely<br>><br>> Why not release them? Is this not open source? What's so secret about<br>
> an iso image?<br><br>Ehh... I'm not releasing it because it won't work for you. It's really<br>that simple. When I was working on the ISO, rather than doing things<br>"right" and extensible, I did them "quick and dirty". I added
<br>hard-coded paths. I changed pieces of code that I know will break other<br>things. Besides this, I *still* have to do manual intervention in some<br>places to get things to work.<br><br>Basically, if I took a dump in a bag and gave it to you, you'd get about
<br>as much use out of it. If you want to look at my turd, at least let me<br>polish it for you.<br><br>Also, there's nothing "open source" about the spec files used to build a<br>CD. While catalyst is released under the GPL, and the individual
<br>packages are released under some open source license or another, the<br>actual spec files aren't under any license until I release them. The<br>*only* reason that they get released is because of the general open<br>nature of Gentoo, not because of any licensing requirement. Basically,
<br>they get released because I want to release them. At any rate, as I've<br>stated a few times (thanks for the troll, Mike!) already, I'll release<br>proper spec files after the release of catalyst 2.0, once there is<br>
actually something that makes the spec files usable. Until that time,<br>you can consider the spec files under the FWO (For Wolf Only) license.<br>If you want to peek at them, I'll fax you a NDA for you to sign after<br>
you send me the check for a FWO license... :P<br><br>I could release what I have right now, but you wouldn't understand how<br>it works, since they would not work with any released version of<br>catalyst. They wouldn't even work with catalyst
2.0 from CVS. My spec<br>files work *only* on my *one* workstation that I've been using to build<br>the LiveCD on, simply because I was lazy and under a lot of pressure to<br>produce the CD in a very limited amount of time and have no interest to
<br>spend countless hours cleaning it up just so I can release it in its<br>current ugly state. Most of the code has already been pushed into<br>catalyst 2.0 CVS, but there's still a few patches I have to add before<br>that goes out for release.
<br><br>
</blockquote></div><br>OK like I said before your previous answer was
fine. I don't feel the need to walk the same path twice since you two
have obviously argued this before. The statement I made about open
source had nothing to do with licensing and everything to do with
openness. In any case if its a sloppy hack, fine. If I need a livecd I
can make my own. In the meantime I'm happy to let you keep generating
the CDs, you do a good job at it.<br>
<br>
-Mike<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>________________________________<br>Michael E. Crute<br>Software Developer<br>SoftGroup Development Corporation<br><br>Linux, because reboots are for installing hardware.<br>"In a world without walls and fences, who needs windows and gates?"
|
