Rockbox.org home
release
dev builds
extras
themes manual
wiki
device status forums
mailing lists
IRC bugs
patches
dev guide



Rockbox mail archive

Subject: Re: Legal issues, names, privacy, and pseudonyms
From: BlueChip (cs_bluechip_at_webtribe.net)
Date: 2004-06-10


At 22:11 09/06/04, you wrote:
>BlueChip wrote:
>
>>There is a solution to this puzzle, it's finding someone who is smart enough
>>to work out what it is! I do not believe in "impossible"
>
>The traditional solution is, of course, a fork distributed as a patch to
>the release source. For example, when Alan Cox wanted a more feature rich
>bleeding edge kernel than Linus Torvalds was willing to sanction, he
>created the -ac series Linux kernel patches. For a while this was
>actually the only sensible way to get some quite necessary functionality
>from Linux. A lot of this functionality was then rolled back into the
>"official" kernel at a later date.
>
>So one possible solution is for Bluechip (or whoever) to create a GPLed
>version Rockbox as a patch on the daily build. They are then free to
>follow their own policies about what to accept and not to accept. Rockbox
>gets to retain its purity, those users that want it can have builds with
>extra functionality, everyone wins. (Except perhaps the person who has to
>maintain the patches, since it's a bit more work that maintaining a source
>tree.) The core developers can keep an eye on the patch, and take what
>they like from it.
>
>I have no axe to grind either way on this issue. It just seems that the
>core team wants to take Rockbox in a different direction from Bluechip. I
>think there's actually room for both a solid stable core feature set and a
>more bleeding edge open development version. And the beauty of GPL is
>that both are possible if people want them enough. And both sets of
>developers get complete control over what goes in 'their' build.
>For embedded devices the issue of which features get incorporated are
>actually more important than in your average piece of software, since you
>do have a more limited amount of memory available.
>
>I suspect that most Rockbox users are not the kind of people that want or
>can roll their own Rockbox. More choice for them is not necessarily a bad
>thing. And if everyone can manage to stay amicable and friendly about it,
>in the way Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox did, all Rockbox users should be
>able to benefit from it.
>
>Christi

Phew, someone objective :)

You made the point well, the biggest problem with a fork is finding someone
who has enough spare time to update it every day. And that's not me :(
Although I do maintain meticulous notes on everything I change in the core.

As for roll-your-own ...that is a task that can be made simple:
Which chunks of source would you like to compile?
1. FM/FMR/V2/V1/Neo35/NeoStation
2. Language?
3. Debug or Normal build?
4. Simulator or Real thing?
5. Enhanced Audio Feature Support?
etc.

Rockbox would never supply every possible build - that would be throughly
unmaintainable - but for those with 20 minutes to spare, a few questions
and a "make" and it is all done. Getting a compile using the notes that
come with my devkit is virtually fool-proof already.

I would love to see the doors of Rockbox fly open so that plugins, like
mine, can run freely.

I appreciate that the volume scaling is a bit of a dodgy unique'ness with
this specific plugin, but excepting that, Audio_3587 requires nothing that
has not already been considered for inclusion into Rockbox.

And if Audio_3587 gets enough positive feedback, I am sure the keys to
those metaphorical doors will be found to keep the user-base happy. After
all, that is the Prime Directive of this project.

If people want to see a fork, I will happily contribute to that project as
well as this, but I think that better options MUST be available.

Thanks for your thoughts Chrisi, I hope my rebuttal clarifies a good reason
not to split this project, but to open it dynamically to more powerful options.

BlueChip

_______________________________________________
http://cool.haxx.se/mailman/listinfo/rockbox



Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew
aaa