Horst Herb wrote:
Question: the source code in the CVS tree there appears about two years old.
The downloadable tarball bears neither version number nor release date.
Did I miss something?
How relevant is the published source code to the current version?
If I just missed that information on the web site, I would be grateful for a
URL where I can read it up myself
Horst and other concerned open-sorcerers:
I must apologise to all if we have temporarily dropped the ball with
respect to keeping our licence materials and open-source commitments
up-to-date.
For the past 3 or so months our developers have been totally focussed on
getting version 4.2 to the point of being developed, tested, QC'd and
out the door, and everyone here has not had a moment to see that the
open-source release commitments have been ticked-off. I also have not
had a chance to review our licence statements and conditions since
Brendan Scott, IT Law Open Source Law advised us on the appropriate
content of the licences and adoption of the GPL.
When you get to our level of operation (about 5 practice registrations
per day for getting hold of Argus and our Help Desk assisting with 2
practice installations per day), even a small 30 minute job for our
meagre resources becomes something we have to prioritize ruthlessly.
The idea of HOWF having someone on contract that acts for them and the
open source interests is one that I have put to HOWF board in the past.
I think they said "Ross, go and prepare a plan and proposal". So once
again my commitments have got in the way of that going forward. :-[
We will review all these issues and others Horst , David and Tim have
brought up asap.
regards
Ross Davey
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
