Rockbox mail archiveSubject: RE: Legal issues, names, privacy, and pseudonyms
RE: Legal issues, names, privacy, and pseudonyms
From: BlueChip <cs_bluechip_at_webtribe.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 20:38:40 +0100
"Othelo is another matter, I wouldn't include it with RockBox."
I gotta ask ...why?
"Audio_3587 code is unlikely to raise copyright isuues, because (I assume)
it is based on publicly available information"
You assumption is correct.
"It can remain available as a plugin on the "author's" website."
The dilemma with "author's site" plugins is that (and Audio_3587 is a perfect
example of this) if the plugin requires access to resources which are not
available in the standard plugin interface, you have two choices.
Dump it in source-forge and risk that it will never see the light of day again.
Or maintain a seperate build.
I Played with MP3Cut the other day - MY GOD, IT IS AWSOME.
How that ever got missed is anybodies guess.
But it did, so again the author was forced to maintain a seperate build.
I bet the guy who wrote the sort-by-filetype mod runs a special build?
One guy has a full blown GUI (picture-driven interface) ..I bet he also runs
his own special build.
In fact I would not be surprised if there was a branch for every name that has
submitted to the source-forge archive!
Understand that an open-source project is only as open to new ideas as the
person who controls it. But whoever is in power will eventually refuse a
patch that SOMEone wants. I think something closer to a democracy and further
from an autocracy might be the logical solution. But you can't vote out a
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"
>All this legal/privacy stuff is quite interesting, and we could all go on
>and on "discussing" it for ages. I agree with both sides of the coin. But
>ultimately it is zagor's call as he will be the one they go after.
>I propose that the Audio_3587 code is unlikely to raise copyright isuues,
>because (I assume) it is based on publicly available information ie. the
>MAS3587 datasheet. Othelo is another matter, I wouldn't include it with
>RockBox. It can remain available as a plugin on the "author's" website.
>This way we all get the benefit without zagor taking the risk. I know there
>are principals involved here, and as I said I agree strongly with both
>sides, I'm just looking for a way through the stalemate.
Received on 2004-06-09