Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Signing off.
Re: Signing off.
From: Will Robertson <aliask_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:44:12 +1100
Bluechip, as far as I see, you're wasting your time here.
You clearly stand nothing to gain, as you have made it completely clear that
you aren't going to reveal your real name, and the rockbox team have made it
just as clear that this is a requirement for the acceptance of your code.
The only reason there has been such a big debate about this is because you
have obviously been spending all your time somehow trying to bring the
"rockbox three" (as you put it) down, with these constant and completely
ineffective replies. It's proving pointless and it makes you look silly.
Use your time more effectively and take some advice from the people that
have already contributed - take your code to an offshoot project and enjoy
On 3/16/06, Bluechip <csbluechip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>How exactly is it unlicenced?
> >Björn pointed this out. You refused to respond (to that too).
> Well, first off, I have already apologised for
> not reading the full thread-to-date before I replied.
> The above was in reply to a post made BEFORE Bjo"rn's post.
> Secondly, I did not see any questions in Bjo"rns
> post or any points which appeared to require a rebuttal.
> He knows it is "thorny and repulsive", and
> because of his take on "European Software
> Patents" he believes "we are in the clear"
> If there is anything specific you want my input
> on, please pose it to me in the form of a question.
> If not, then as far as I see it, Rockbox's has
> opined formally with 'we don't think we're
> breaching Thompson/Fraunhofer's license' ...and
> at that point, you need someone with far more
> legal experience than I have to help you out.
> >>>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?
> I remember saying that when I was told that my
> pen-name could cause legal trouble for you [collective].
> So I say, whatever your [collective] reasons were
> then, will probably guide you to the answer this time.
> >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).
> Is that why Linus' name has been removed from internic's database?
> >>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.
> Indeed, Bejeweled was the one that leapt out at
> me. But as you also have focussed on this, I
> guess I have been misinformed (by a Nokia games
> coder at Vodafone) that Popcap own the trademark on the name.
> >>> > As I said before, The big-3 (ala Rockbox.org) have claimed that
> >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.
> In context of the post to which I was replying,
> you had been collectively referred to as
> "rockbox.org", hence my placing it in
> parenthesis, so the chap to whom I was replying understood my reference.
> >>Feel free to read up on the subject if you wish
> >>to understand fully, most correspondence is publicly available :)
> Again, aimed at the guy to whom I was replying,
> who seemed to be lacking a large chunk of info.
> >>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.)
> Well, in the first case, it was in reply to the
> original post which you have snipped.
> In the second case, the incongruitites created by
> The Rockbox-Three are generally eschewed, not in
> what HAS been said, but more in what has NOT been said.
> >>>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?
> No, but then you are being deliberately silly
> No, Jens seems to do most of the work there
> No, but you should enforce ALL your rules with equal vigour
> >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. In fact I honestly wonder how you guys earn
> money. My best guess is "Contractors.se" (sorry
> if I got that wrong, but you will know what I
> mean) must be your [collective?] company -
> otherwise you seem to be online all day hacking
> rockbox, often from home - and I would have
> thought you would have been fired for not doing any "real" work
> ...if you ARE doing "real work" then you must all
> be single and insomniacs ;) <- humour
> >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.
> When I have more time I will try to find the
> thread which said to effect of "we are not
> correcting // comments in imported codec code"
> ==Personally==, my thoughts are this:
> No two programmers will ever agree on a set of
> "beauty rules", so someone needs to have the
> final say. I guess Bjo"rn in this case.
> // comments are good
> ...it's a personal thing, I know.
> All C compilers are happy with it nowdays, BUT
> technically it is illegal C code.
> It also means that you can use /* */ to remove chunks of code during
> Yes, I know you can use #if 0 ...but most syntax highlighters miss that.
> If all the comments have to be changed by hand in
> all the included codecs - "real" hacking would
> not get done, and the users will lose out on codecs _as well as_ new
> It would take _minutes_ to knock up a program to correct the commenting.
> if "//" then "/* %s */"
> watch out for the rockbox logo and any embedded urls
> Code beautifiers are available that do all this
> stuff automatically - they take an age to
> configure - but once done, never forgotten.
> >I have no doubts you can also find a bug or two in the code.
> I have no doubt at all ...I also suspect I could
> fix many of the bugs I find. But it would be a
> waste of time as nobody but me would ever benefit
> from my work - hence why I still run 2.4 with all
> the bugs that annoyed me personally removed.
> >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?
> Could you define "conspiracy" please. It has
> many, some macabre, defintions, especially in vernacular useage.
> >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
> kewl ...Presuming no ancient history or papal sanction:
> Crusade (n): A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an
> I AM A CRUSADER :)
> I guess your use of "conspiracy" must be to
> suggest "abuse", for I know not of any vernacular definitions of
> >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 believe you when you say you have chosen to
> forget the _useful_ things I have contributed
> since my submission ban. I would probably do the
> same in your shoes, else I would not be able to maintain my frame of mind.
> But if you have simply shut off that part of your
> mind, let me open the first couple of doors for you:
> Geniune ideas for the tag db; a util to fix
> broken rockbox recordings; devkit; plugins; libs;
> files you will not/cannot host eg. ROM dumps*; etc.; etc.
> *yes, I know ROMs are contentious, I am happy to
> remove them at the first email from Archos -
> should they really care; and understand that you
> would not be wise to put yourself in the same
> position. So *I* do this for the community, as you cannot.
> Why am I here? It amuses me to be here.
> >I have no doubt that you'll continue your
> >endless effort until the end of times.
> Thank you :)
> >I think I'll continue to respond to your
> >outbursts every now and then. It'll keep me amused.
> And, you never know what the future holds unless you are a clairvoyant.
Received on 2006-03-16