| 1 |
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:29:40 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> I guess that you're correct that it's been crippled a bit but |
| 5 |
>> according to this page it doesn't seem that bad to me: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Editions |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> I don't personally need the USB stuff inside of VB so for me it |
| 10 |
>> might be enough. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> It seems a little underhand to me, either its open source or it isn't. |
| 13 |
> There's no good technical reason to not release the USB source, only |
| 14 |
> commercial reasons. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> -- |
| 18 |
> Neil Bothwick |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> The quickest way to a man's heart is through his sternum. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
I agree, but it may be that Sun had licensed stuff like this from |
| 23 |
someone else prior to making the project Open Source and cannot |
| 24 |
release it. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
It would be great if it got rewritten from scratch by someone not |
| 27 |
involved so that it could be 100% Open Source, but practically |
| 28 |
speaking it won't be an issue in terms of running the platform for |
| 29 |
most people today. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I didn't like some of the language on that page where they said: |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
"It is functionally equivalent to the full VirtualBox package, except |
| 34 |
for a few features that primarily target enterprise customers." |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I don't like it when they say 'functionally equivalent' as it makes me |
| 37 |
think it's not __exactly__ the same code. There may have been other |
| 38 |
portions of the code they couldn't release into Open Source so some of |
| 39 |
it has been rewritten already.... |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
- Mark |
Archives