Quoting Blake Barnett <shadoi@...>:
> You'll notice that only the subdomain: http://club.elivecd.org mentions
> this. And it is actually a completely separate CMS and managed by
> different people than the core Elive project.
I know they are different "sites", but it is still a subdomain, and that
subdomain is often linked from the main http://elivecd.org news page, and on
this weeks distrowatch daily news. What I was not aware of is that it is
managed by a completely different "group" of people, but even in that case,
it is still part of the same elivecd project (I would in theory assume that
it was sanctioned by the elivecd project leaders).
If it would be completely different than the core Elivecd project, how could
they even promise to premium members what they are were promising on the
elivecd club page in first place? (this is just an analogy, I'm not claiming
this is how things happened)
In other words my point was that the club is still more or less tied to
EliveCD.org and the Elive project itself, and via that, at least as things
currently look like in regard to the E-Web ring etc, to the Enlightenment
Anyways it looks like there was some internal misunderstandings inside the
Elive project regarding the whole club idea, since it seems the club seems
to be closed down now, according to
http://club.elivecd.org/tiki-index.php?page=Elive+Club at least.
> >1. i don't begrudge anyone making money off e - they have a right to. we
> >hope if they make good money it would somehow come back to us
> eventually. 2. i
> >realise hosting ISO's of a distribution uses a LOT OF BANDWIDTH and that
> >of bandwidth it expensive. attempting to help cover costs by getting a
> >donation etc. is a valid thing to do i think. 3. i dont think any such
> club or
> >closed site/community/whatever should be PART of the ring. it shouldnt
> use the
> >same graphics from the e ring sites (those graphics ARE copyright
> >enlightenment.org - and thus we technically can control their copying,
> >distribution and use - and use is fine as it is as being part of the
> ring). i
> >thik it would be fair and good of us to link TO such closed clubs/etc.
> >commercial enterprises FROM ring sites where appropriate as a pointer to
> >you want to pay - pay here and you may get faster downloads etc.". 4.
> you do
> >raise a point that we need to have some common agrred on policy. i know
> >may range from "they are charging money! we hate them - people charging
> >evil devil spawn" to "whatever - i don't care" and anything in between.
> i think
> >we should NOT begrudge someone tryign to recoup costs or improve
> services by
> >getting money to pay for them.
This is exactly what I was trying to say, albeit in a too long mail. I know
the BSD licence allows making money off E, and frankly, I don't care if
someone wants to start a commercial subproject. But my point wasn't to
criticize that in the first place, the point was about having a commercial
subproject within the E-circle that uses the same site template for its main
page and so on. That's a different matter, one that I have no control of of
course, was simply bringing it up as a matter for others to discuss.
Yup, hosting ISO images and so on isn't free, and open source (understood in
a very different way than "opensource and IBM" and so on) isn't exactly the
holy grail of money making, so from that point of view I understand the
point. Even in the theoretical situation of EliveCD would be going
completely commercial, I'd still of course support linking them (but not in
the current E-Web way). All in all my arguments were related to the
situation in regard to the current E-Web status.
> >i personalyl think this is an interesting project. in our esperience so
> far the
> >numebr of people willing to put money where their mouths are are few and
> >between - donations to e have been abysmal. we might be able to afford a
> >gfx card for someone - and thats it - from several years of donations.
> >have enough to do much useful with. i would like to see if "if you
> donate $x
> >you get something in return other than the feel-good feeling" works
> >differently. :)
Quoting Blake Barnett:
> While Elive is not exactly following any enlightenment "standards"
> (hah!), it's still a pretty popular distro, since it makes it pretty
> much the easiest way to try e17. I think it would be great if there were
> more collaboration between Elive and the core team but there are quite a
> few obstacles for this, primarily the language barrier and also the
> philosophy behind the creation of Elive is very different from E. I've
> spoken with Thanatermesis quite a bit and he feels pressure to release a
> fully usable, competitive distro. Obviously e16 and definitely e17 don't
> contain a lot of the features that gnome/kde do and I think he's trying
> to provide them quickly. I don't necessarily agree with this approach
> BUT, the key here is that he's actually DOING something, while most
> people just talk about it. I hope it turns out successful, and I hope
> the project eventually finds it's niche. And if they happen to make some
> money off of it, great.
I'm also a fan of Elive - it fills an important niche, not just now (as in
making it possible to try out E17 without having to install it), but in the
future as well. Enlightenment is, in my opinion at least, by definition
something very suitable for a live CD. The basic function of a live-CD and
the goals of Enlightenment are very compatible from a certain point of view
at least. As I said, that post was not meant as a flame, was simply
wondering what's going on and what the plans for the future are (to both
them and to the E-Web ring).