> >They have. Which questions do you think aren't answered?
> How about the legalitites of including an unlicensed MP3 codec?
How exactly is it unlicenced?
http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/
they haven't sued anyone yet
Then The Rockbox-Three are probably safe then :)
> Or the legal issues with the copyrighted material which is reproduced
> without express written concent.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here
See previous mail for example
> Or the use of trademarked names for plugins.
Trademarks are a cloudy issue.
The Rockbox-Three were VERY clear about their stance on Trademark
infringement when they insisted on changing the name of the "Tetris"
plugin. I use this example merely to highlight the duality within
the Rockbox 'code of conduct'
> As I said before, The big-3 (ala Rockbox.org) have claimed that their
> choice on anonimity is based in legal issues.
That may be, I couldn't say, but moving on.
Feel free to read up on the subject if you wish to understand fully,
most correspondence is publicly available :)
> Their continued breach of the above (very prosecutable) legal issues
> proves that we are being deliberately misled.
You've yet to prove any breaches,
I have no interest in "proving" anything. Merely highlighting parts
of reality which have been carefully shaded by The Rockbox-Three.
except the mp3 issue, which, as I've mentioned, isn't one, unless
someone can point to evidence where this is
no longer the case.
See above link.
And legal issues come in many flavours.
Err, OK.
Perhaps they're more interested in being able to help a company
identify stolen code's origin?
"Perhaps" ...is that another way to say "That may be, I couldn't say,
but moving on."
After all, if an employee of Iriver donated their mp3 encoder's source
under an anonymous pseudonym, IRiver will most likely sue rockbox in
order to find out whom.
And the answer will be "weeeellll, he TOLD us his name is 'john doe'
- here's his email address; good luck"
I really don't feel that rockbox should be in
the business of protecting anyone under these circumstances.
Nope. With that we can utterly agree.
> So THE question is ...what is the truth?
Conspiracy theorys aside, perhaps they just *want to know your name*!
Or at least something that at least LOOKS/sounds like a "real" name!
Trust is a two-way street,
Err, no. Trust is an esoteric concept. Nominalisations are fun :)
and the users of rockbox need to be able to trust them as much as
developers do.
I agreed to "trust" The Rockbox-Three with my personal details, at
their (later retracted) request. But was offered no "trust" in
return. In rockbox world, "trust" is a ONE way street!
It's just another requirement, along the lines of 'rockbox is
written in C and assembly' and 'comments
start with /* not //'. The world is full of requirements.
Yes, that's another fine example of a "requirement" which is only
relevant when The Rockbox-Three say it is relevant. Well
spotted! Did you pick the same example as me?
http://www.rockbox.org/viewcvs.cgi/apps/codecs/lib/codeclib.c?rev=1.12&view=markup
unsigned char* mp3buf; // The actual MP3 buffer from Rockbox
unsigned char* mallocbuf; // 512K from the start of MP3 buffer
unsigned char* filebuf; // The rest of the MP3 buffer
> Perhaps, just perhaps, if the truth came out, people might react
differently.
Of course, there are little green men on earth, Americans never walked
on the moon, and Hoofbeats still mean 'Zebra'.
Yeeeessss. Up the doseage.
> >They just don't feel for debating this, because it never leads anywhere.
>
> Or is it because they have something to hide?
> There is strong evidence of either being true.
No, really, there isn't. Nothing you've said here strikes me as evidence.
That's fair, different people will notice different things.
"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest" [Simon & Garfunkel]
> >If someone is SERIOUSLY concerned (as you probably are because else
> >you wouldn't make such a drama out of the thing) about this real name
> >stuff and seriously want to help, he/she will most probably choose my
> >option two and fake a name... no problem
>
> Morals come with a high price. *I* (who am very much in line with
> gl's thinking) am not a liar, don't have enough time to maintain a
> fork and dont hand out my personal details online (for many reasons
> covered to death now).
Which they've respected. No-one's forcing you, and since you're not
being paid, you're not contractually obligated to do anything for
rockbox, and thus, not obligated to give up your name against your will.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that rockbox *should* be picky, if only
because there's far FAR more developers under the sun. So much so that
losing talent really isn't what I'd consider an obstacle to rockbox's
goals. (note, opinion is mine, not rockbox's, since I've only done minor
work for rockbox thus far).
<nods>
I'm completely in Joel Spolsky's camp (www.joelonsoftware.com), when he
suggests that if you don't feel 'right' about a potential employee,
don't hire him.
Joel Spolsky doesn't hide his opinion behind a smokescreen of
contradictions though (as far as my brief scan can tell) ...Do you
think that The Rockbox-Three should follow THAT moral stance too? Or
does the reference only hold up out-of-context?
Additionally, I'd be inclined to question the motive behind creating a
society of mistrust by claiming that there may be more pseudonyms than
rockbox realises. No-one stands to gain, and many stand to lose from
such a situation. I'm just glad this is mostly a developer-based list.
Do not mistake "stating the truth" for "making claims".
I trust that you speak candidly and with honesty and integrity.
Let's open up the other end of that two-way street :)
Andrew
BC
