On 16 Oct 2003 at 11:33, Jerome Grimbert wrote: > > Ah ah! There is the culprit!! (Only joking, it was a good move to > get access to the source).
Oh, I think the licence, as it was was first proposed here by me (it was changed subsequently, to take the comments here into account) reflected the common agreement of those that were there. (...) > We could have the whole sources in a CVS repository, > with a mass of branch of development (and a headache for the poor registrar, > or any one wishing to make a release: > That aspect of Linux development is always forgotten by the Pro-Linux users: > there is a hell lot of kernel branches, some really instable, some more > stable (some are for development, some are for 'public release') > and part of a fulltime job is for the 'registrar'(Linus ?) to incorporate > patches from one trial branch onto the 'release' branches (then compiles it, > and check that it works). > I'm not sure we would have any volonter for such hard work with SMSQ/E, > excepted maybe some would-be-dictator. Well, perhaps some see me as that. > I currently just like the work as done by Wolfgang. Ah, thanks! Actually, in this whole licence debate, I've found that there seem to be two stances - some are pretty violently opposed to it whilst others can't see what the fuzz is all about. Phoebus' position ( strongly against the Licence, but may go along with it) is pretty exceptional. Wolfgang
