Re: [Opencd-devel] Source

[Paul S. <ps...@ni...>]

I believe we should do Option 3, or at least Option 2 in making source
available for the programs that we distribute on the CD. I am not
referring to the latest version of the source, but the source for
the application that we distribute.

Problems this solves:
1. The original source becomes unavailable for whatever reason (including
that the source is out of date and the developers only keep a certain
number of previous versions available).  We will have the original source.

2. People looking for the latest and greatest won't come to us, we won't
have it (and we should advertise that fact).

Problems this creates:
We have an ongoing commitment to keeping copies of the source for any CD's
that we distribute because we did not distribute the source with the
binaries.  Option 3 may alleviate this obligation somewhat as we could
retire iso sets together.

Paul Snow
ps...@ni...

>Message: 6
>Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 02:51:45 +0200
>To: "opencd-devel-lists.sourceforge.net" <ope...@li...>
>From: Robert Ian Smit <ro...@wa...>
>Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [Opencd-devel] Source
>
>
>>
>>Ok, I think we're nearing agreement on this point.
>>
>>We seem to agree that the source should _not_ be on the main CD for
>>several good reasons.  The remaining disagrement is a minor one.  I see
>>3 options:
>>
>>1)  We simply link places where the source can be obtained, from the CD
>>and from our web page
>>
>>2)  We store the source at our own web site in individual zip files, one
>>for each app, and link to these.
>>
>>3)  We can do 1., 2. and make an ISO with these source files, so that
>>people can burn it and distribute it easily.
>>
>>All of these meet the Licence requirements (I think), but if we chose
>>only #1, we might be seen as not pulling our weight, by telling people
>>to use the bandwith of the devel teams to get the source.
>>
>>- Henrik
>
>
>Hi everyone,
>
>This is my first message. I will introduce my self in a separate message to 
>this list.
>
>I think we should go for option 1. And make sure the links to the source 
>are well hidden from a casual user. Anyone looking for the source will 
>probably know where to find it. Source, instructions for compilation and a 
>lot of  the developer websites will scare people off. They don't care about 
>the +0.001(a-z) upgrade of a given application. They don't want to know 
>about the source of all evil (pun intended). They don't care that new 
>features are included in a nightly build. If there is a good reason for 
>power users to daily/weekly install a new build, the application is not 
>ready for prime time. I personally only install the milestone releases of 
>Mozilla. I waited for OpenOffice to hit 1.0 etc.
>
>Storing sources on the website will make maintaining it a bitch. It only 
>has real value if the sources are up to date (latest releases included, not 
>only the ones which currently carry our seal of approval). This takes a lot 
>of effort for instance in the case of Mozilla. Maybe with a lot of hard 
>work we can have a good repository of source. But think about it. What 
>happens if the site gets listed on Slashdot the first day an Openoffice or 
>Mozilla milestone sees the light of day. How many potential users from our 
>target audience will get a Host Not Reachable on that day and go to 
>download.com and go for demo-, free- or shareware or just stick to what 
>they already have.
>
>We should of course pay respect to the opensource initiative and the 
>developers. I think we should include some well-worded advocacy pieces. It 
>shouldn't get in the way of users who are not interested. And most 
>importantly it should not bash Microsoft, AOL or anything else or try to 
>prove superiority. But this is another discussion.
>
>The source-ISO has some benefits for the bandwidth-impaired. However trying 
>to tackle that issue is aiming to high. We should be focused on one thing 
>and one thing only. Change the world one step at a time and so on.
>
>Bob
>
>
>
>
>--__--__--
>