__/ [ Mark Kent ] on Saturday 24 March 2007 13:49 \__
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> [beryl-dev] Merge On (details still to be decided)
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| Well, I've read all the arguments, and I think I may have been being
>>| overly
>>| cautious. It is indeed a concern that we might lose our freedom in
>>| a 'merge', but I have been convinced that it isn't a major concern (and
>>| of course we reserve the right to re-fork).
>>|
>>| We do indeed need to choose a third, new name in a merge, and of course
>>| (again) rename the beryl-named components, for the obvious reasons.
>> `----
>>
>> http://lists.beryl-project.org/pipermail/beryl-dev/2007-March/000356.html
>>
>
> This is fair enough, of course, but I remain concerned about the Novell
> influence potential here. They could cause all kinds of problems, and I
> fully expect that at some point in the future, they will do just that.
It's Novell's influence that apparently motivated the fork in the first
place. History could repeat itself if Novell does not play nice. See the
following recent story:
Open Source, but Closed Communication
,----[ Quote ]
| Christoph Thiel, on the release of slightly changed openSUSE 10.2 ISO
| images: "The reason for putting out those updated ISOs is a license
| issue, which had to be addressed."
|
| What license issue? For what package?
`----
http://beranger.org/index.php?article=2612&from=rss
Someone clarified this in our blog, but it's too late to be a convincing
explanation. Whether it's SLED or Opensuse, Novell is sometime vain (and not
transparent _at all_). It even negotiated the MS deal without involving
anyone but the very top people, behind closed door. It went on for roughly 6
months.
--
~~ Best wishes
Proprietary, lockin-based tools lead to regrets. Doc(umen)tor, heal thyself.
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
5:00pm up 13 days 1:03, 6 users, load average: 2.69, 1.19, 0.98
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
|
|
