From: Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 16:07:37 -0600

Firstly: Just because a rule is not written down, does not mean it does not
exist. If you'd like, we can write out a copy of the rules. Will that
magically change your stance on them, or will you then argue that you should
be grandfathered in because they were put on paper after your conflict with
them?

Secondly: There is no explicit rule that says your build cannot be hosted on
the wiki. But there is also no explicit rule that says it can. As you may
have noticed, several developers seem to be in agreement on this topic. The
build isn't what it once was, and should be treated as the other unsupported
builds. Again, why should your build receive special treatment? Things
change, and the situation has changed through your actions. I don't
understand why you're making such a fuss over this. Honestly, is it such an
imposition to suggest that you find your own hosting for the files?

Please, honestly, explain exactly why you've taken this so personally when
all it was was a statement that your build should follow the same conditions
as other unsupported builds. You said it doesn't seem to be applicable here.
Why does your build not qualify as an unsupported build, and is immune to
that application?

Perhaps a clarification of your full reasoning why this whole topic is
invalid might shed some light onto why there's a conflict. But please avoid
arguments such as "They told me I could in the past" because the situation
*has* changed, and even if it hasn't, a statement in the past such as that
is not binding in perpetuity. State what merit of your build makes it either
immune to the guidelines, or not an 'unsupported build'.

On 1/6/07, Peter D'Hoye <peter.dhoye_at_telenet.be> wrote:
>
> > >That is not true and you know it. The code is there to use for
> > >everybody and the rules are clear (and quite flexible imho).
> >
> > "Rules" - Paul talked about rules too. Can you give me a URL
> > for that? I've searched and can't find anything apart from
> > the forum posting guidelines which don't seem to be applicable here.
>
> Sure, google for GPL. You're free to modify the code as you like and offer
> the result for donwload (including the sources).
>
> It's just that your changed build can no longer be hosted by RockBox
> itself.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
Received on 2007-01-06