[rs-users] retro: chronic (was source code permission request)

[Mudi O. <mu...@ob...>]

 > 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