From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_rockbox.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:43:45 +0100 (CET)

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Bluechip wrote:

>> How exactly is it unlicenced?
>
> http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/

Björn pointed this out. You refused to respond (to that too).

>> they haven't sued anyone yet
>
> Then The Rockbox-Three are probably safe then :)

Why would anyone sue one of us even if this was true? Rockbox is not a formal
organization of any kind and I don't see how one of us is personally
responsible for Rockbox as a whole. Possibly we could be blamed for
distributing it, yes, but then I'd guess they'd sue the admins or the owner of
the server(s).

> The Rockbox-Three were VERY clear about their stance on Trademark
> infringement when they insisted on changing the name of the "Tetris" plugin.
> I use this example merely to highlight the duality within the Rockbox 'code
> of conduct'

We are clear and that has not changed. We haven't been made aware of any
trademark infringements to my knowledge. Now when you've brought it up and I
checked around I can only _assume_ that you are talking about our use of the
name 'Bejeweled'. Is that so, or can you please clarify? You speak in vague
terms.

>> > As I said before, The big-3 (ala Rockbox.org) have claimed that their

rockbox.org is a domain and there are lots of more people than three that
support and produce what we do in the Rockbox project and that result is
hosted on the servers using that domain name.

> Feel free to read up on the subject if you wish to understand fully, most
> correspondence is publicly available :)

...

> I have no interest in "proving" anything. Merely highlighting parts of
> reality which have been carefully shaded by The Rockbox-Three.

The info is publicly available and yet carefully shaded? (Not that I even
understand what info you're talking about in either of these cases.)

>> It's just another requirement, along the lines of 'rockbox is written in C
>> and assembly' and 'comments start with /* not //'. The world is full of
>> requirements.
>
> Yes, that's another fine example of a "requirement" which is only relevant
> when The Rockbox-Three say it is relevant. Well spotted! Did you pick the
> same example as me?

Do you actually think that only we three do all CVS commits, code reviews and
enforce the source code rules? Are you aware of what amounts of code we have?
Are you aware of the amounts of contributions and submissions from people we
get? Do you understand how much time we already spend on this?

Yes we want the code to follow the source code rules. Lots of mistakes and
sloppiness slip through anyway and from time to time we do "raids" to adjust
code to be more adhering to our guidelines. Yes there are still many
rule-breaking source codes around. One day we'll probably fix the cases you
mentioned here. I have no doubts you can also find a bug or two in the code.

A conspiracy by "The Rockbox-Three" must be the only answer to why they are
still present. I mean, it can't be as simple as that mistakes happen?

Now, the good part about open source is that if anyone is unhappy with the
project they can take the source and start a new project somewhere else. If
you and the rare few others who stand by you on your conspiracy-crusade would
be seriously concerned, then you should do this. But no, as we've seen for the
last several years, you just continue your whining and complaining. I don't
think I'm alone in wondering what the heck you're still doing here. Everything
we do seems to be wrong in your eyes. You don't contribute with _anything_
useful. Yet you're still here. Year after year.

I have no doubt that you'll continue your endless effort until the end of
times. I think I'll continue to respond to your outbursts every now and then.
It'll keep me amused.

-- 
  Daniel Stenberg -- http://www.rockbox.org/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/

Received on 2006-03-15