Gentoo Archives: gentoo-installer

From: Michael Crute <mcrute@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-installer@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-installer] Gentoo installer vs current installation method, what about later?
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:42:02
Message-Id: 558b73fb0510201341y58f49c75k50c42e833f969b7c@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-installer] Gentoo installer vs current installation method, what about later? by Chris Gianelloni
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?"