[rs-users] retro: chronic (was source code permission request)
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
obada
|
From: Mudi O. <mu...@ob...> - 2002-01-21 21:41:35
|
> Chris Rempel [mailto:ju...@ho...]
> With that all said, I wish you luck with your project, but you
> still just
> have me completely confused to your motives behind all of it. As
> you -still-
> have not explained yourself on that matter.
I tend not to want to say things if I don't have to.
If retrostep lands in /dev/null by tomorrow
because I lose interrest, why should I bother explaining
motives. As for motives, what motives are you
interested in having explained? (sorry, i keep asking such
questions but like I just said ...)
Here is a chronic of what happened to help you chose
what you like details on.
- I wrote code - wanted to contribute it to GPLed litestep.
- GPLed litestep unable to take code faster than I was producing
- PureLS ideas very appealing but rate of developement not great.
- Decided to work on own code and ignore working with ls or pls devs.
- Decided to reimplement all of ls code - explanation is simple - madness.
- did so much differently that merge with ls would have been imposible.
- retro looks good enough to share. Stopped:
- Asked myself "what's the point"? litestep is good enough.
- Thought of litestep problems
- litestep being under GPL and it implications seemed to be something
retro could avoid - Mailed ls ML to see what others thought.
Was a disaster because nobody cared about GPL - only about why I did.
Had to mention retro (although I rather would have not at that point)
Add to that a small misunderstanding on the purels ML (not with jugg).
- All the same, if retro was under GPL, it brought nothing new to the ls
world.
- I decided to go the extra milage to have no GPL
- wanted certain things in the release
- asked for permission to use code - another disaster on the ML.
- can't stop now...
(Gosh! that was long!!)
~Mudi
|