Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Rockbox 2.5.1 for Archos Machines Updated
Re: Rockbox 2.5.1 for Archos Machines Updated
From: Tom Cole <tcole_at_xtra.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 11:49:42 +1300
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 01:16:14 -0600, "Paul Louden" <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com>
>The code is not being rejected in any way. The ONLY thing that is being said
>is that the unsupported build should not be hosted on the Wiki if it is
>going to act like the regular unsupported builds.
>Seriously, please read what I'm saying. Any patches posted to the tracker
>will be considered like normal. The ONLY issue here is that because he has
>started updating the build, it now falls under the same conditions as any
>other unsupported build: IE it needs offsite hosting and should be listed as
>a forum thread only, and not a wiki entry.
But *why* was it being updated?
Quote from earlier post:
"Recently, one of the developers advised me that I should provide the
source as this was a requirement of the Rockbox GPL licence. As I had
further developed my version for my own use I didn't have the source of
the version on the wiki page anymore. To put things right I have
provided new downloads plus the source as required."
The developer concerned was Linus.
>This is not a statement as to the fitness of any aspect of the build itself.
>It's a statement saying "You have changed the situation and should now be
>subject to the exact same rules 20 other builds have been subject to for
>Rasher has offered webspace. If his is unnacceptable for some reason, I'm
>certain there are others who might be able to help, as well, there are many
>free sources of minimal web hosting, which is all this should need.
>The problem is not with the build itself in any way.
>The issue is that it was receiving special treatment. While this wasn't a
>problem when it was simple a small bugfix to 2.5, by adding features it
>moves into an entirely different category.
All these attempts to justify your actions are totally unnecessary.
Received on 2007-01-06