|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Legal issues, names, privacy, and pseudonymsRe: Legal issues, names, privacy, and pseudonyms
From: BlueChip <cs_bluechip_at_webtribe.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:06:08 +0100 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 Received on 2004-06-10 Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |