1 |
On 10/20/05, Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 16:16 -0400, Michael Crute wrote: |
4 |
> > On 10/20/05, Mike Rosset <schizoid29@×××××.com> wrote: |
5 |
> > I've all ready asked for those and got shot down appartently |
6 |
> > Chris wont release them. Also Chris will try to bump this to |
7 |
> > another list releng, more then likely |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > Why not release them? Is this not open source? What's so secret about |
10 |
> > an iso image? |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Ehh... I'm not releasing it because it won't work for you. It's really |
13 |
> that simple. When I was working on the ISO, rather than doing things |
14 |
> "right" and extensible, I did them "quick and dirty". I added |
15 |
> hard-coded paths. I changed pieces of code that I know will break other |
16 |
> things. Besides this, I *still* have to do manual intervention in some |
17 |
> places to get things to work. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Basically, if I took a dump in a bag and gave it to you, you'd get about |
20 |
> as much use out of it. If you want to look at my turd, at least let me |
21 |
> polish it for you. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Also, there's nothing "open source" about the spec files used to build a |
24 |
> CD. While catalyst is released under the GPL, and the individual |
25 |
> packages are released under some open source license or another, the |
26 |
> actual spec files aren't under any license until I release them. The |
27 |
> *only* reason that they get released is because of the general open |
28 |
> nature of Gentoo, not because of any licensing requirement. Basically, |
29 |
> they get released because I want to release them. At any rate, as I've |
30 |
> stated a few times (thanks for the troll, Mike!) already, I'll release |
31 |
> proper spec files after the release of catalyst 2.0, once there is |
32 |
> actually something that makes the spec files usable. Until that time, |
33 |
> you can consider the spec files under the FWO (For Wolf Only) license. |
34 |
> If you want to peek at them, I'll fax you a NDA for you to sign after |
35 |
> you send me the check for a FWO license... :P |
36 |
> |
37 |
> I could release what I have right now, but you wouldn't understand how |
38 |
> it works, since they would not work with any released version of |
39 |
> catalyst. They wouldn't even work with catalyst 2.0 from CVS. My spec |
40 |
> files work *only* on my *one* workstation that I've been using to build |
41 |
> the LiveCD on, simply because I was lazy and under a lot of pressure to |
42 |
> produce the CD in a very limited amount of time and have no interest to |
43 |
> spend countless hours cleaning it up just so I can release it in its |
44 |
> current ugly state. Most of the code has already been pushed into |
45 |
> catalyst 2.0 CVS, but there's still a few patches I have to add before |
46 |
> that goes out for release. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> |
49 |
OK like I said before your previous answer was fine. I don't feel the need |
50 |
to walk the same path twice since you two have obviously argued this before. |
51 |
The statement I made about open source had nothing to do with licensing and |
52 |
everything to do with openness. In any case if its a sloppy hack, fine. If I |
53 |
need a livecd I can make my own. In the meantime I'm happy to let you keep |
54 |
generating the CDs, you do a good job at it. |
55 |
|
56 |
-Mike |
57 |
|
58 |
-- |
59 |
________________________________ |
60 |
Michael E. Crute |
61 |
Software Developer |
62 |
SoftGroup Development Corporation |
63 |
|
64 |
Linux, because reboots are for installing hardware. |
65 |
"In a world without walls and fences, who needs windows and gates?" |